The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The effect of the public prosecution cannot be denied even if the public prosecution was instituted by the prosecutor again against the allegation of the grounds of appeal that the public prosecution constitutes abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3343, Jun. 29, 2007, etc.). In addition, in a case where the prosecutor voluntarily exercised the right to institute a public prosecution and gives substantial disadvantage to the defendant, the effect of the public prosecution may be denied by regarding it as abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution. However, to recognize it as an abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution, it is insufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least there is a willful or any intention with respect thereto.

In light of the records, the prosecutor’s indictment was imposed on January 27, 2015 on the suspected crime of embezzlement of the Defendant, and the victim again filed a complaint against the Defendant on July 16, 2015, and the suspension of indictment was imposed on May 27, 2016, and the prosecution of this case was instituted to the effect that the crime of embezzlement, which was additionally accused, was committed by the end of the period of the suspension of indictment on May 27, 2016.

In light of the background of the indictment, even if considering that the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the additionally accused fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and that this part of the judgment became final and conclusive due to the prosecutor’s failure to file an appeal, it is difficult to recognize that the instant indictment by the prosecutor was an arbitrary exercise of authority.

The defendant, on the grounds of appeal, was dissatisfied with the disposition of suspending the indictment and filed a constitutional complaint, and the prosecutor revoked the disposition of suspending the indictment with the indication of the complaint and re-guilty the indictment. This is alleged to be illegal as it constitutes abuse of the authority of prosecution beyond the discretion of the prosecutor. However, in light of the records, this case is viewed as unlawful.