1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff alleged that C had filed a complaint on October 18, 2015 as to the property gains 56 billion won acquired by deceiving the Plaintiff with respect to the development project for the open book of the Gungpo University, and carrying on the same business with the Plaintiff and carrying on the same business, against C as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

However, on February 15, 2016, the Defendant, who is the police officer of the Seoul Military Police Station, did not investigate the instant case and neglected his/her official authority by sending the case to the prosecutor’s office and closing the case.

The Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 per day and KRW 3 million per attorney’s fees for 80 days from October 18, 2015, on which the Defendant filed a complaint with C due to the above acts by the Defendant, to the end of February 15, 2016, for which the Defendant sent the case to the prosecutor’s office, as a result of the disposition by the Defendant’s non-prosecution (suspect of suspicion).

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the damages amounting to five million won, which is part of the damages, and the damages for delay.

2. However, a reasonable discretion has been given to an investigative agency to exercise its authority properly in response to all circumstances. In light of the legislative intent and purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act that granted authority to an investigative agency to an investigation agency to conduct an investigation as illegal, it should be recognized that the investigation agency’s failure to take necessary measures according to specific circumstances is deemed considerably unreasonable, or that it has reached the extent that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical or logical rules, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da14932 delivered on December 7, 2006). In light of the above legal principle, the health stand in this case and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against C brought by the Plaintiff.