1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that, by deceiving the Plaintiff, he/she acquired the Plaintiff’s owned vehicle or embezzled the vehicle in custody for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed each complaint against B and C, and received each of the following dispositions.

As a result of the disposition on the date of taking the name of the suspect's case number of B B, Busan District Prosecutors' Office 2015-type and 70920-type embezzlement on September 18, 2015, 22 B, Busan District Prosecutors' Office 2015-type and 96728 fraud on February 26, 2016, 3C-type and 3-type and 7674 embezzlement of 2017-type and 3-type and 37674 of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office 2017-type and 3774 public prosecutor's office, dismissed on July 13, 2017 4 B B, Busan District Public Prosecutors' Office 2018-type and 5-type B, Busan District Public Prosecutors' Office 2019-type and 722-type fraud on March 29, 2019.

B. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the above-mentioned Nos. 1 and 2, but received a decision to dismiss each appeal from the Busan High Prosecutors' Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 through 7, 10 through 16, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In each of the above criminal cases alleged by the Plaintiff, the public officials including the Defendant’s public officials, etc., who were the public officials of the Defendant, deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to affix their seals on the statement, etc., were engaged in the investigation and conducted a non-prosecution disposition, and committed tort, such as double investigation without sufficient investigation, and making a dismissal disposition. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 74 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. In order to recognize the Defendant’s liability for State compensation due to the act of the public official of the first instance, the public official intentionally or negligently violates the law pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.