The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case, the police and the prosecutor's office have destroyed and fabricated evidence during the course of the investigation, and the arrest warrant was not issued within 48 hours, and the prosecution was indicted for a biased investigation.

B. In relation to the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below [2019 Godan1318] part of the judgment of the court below, there was no fact that the defendant had shown the attitude that the defendant would inflict a bodily injury on the victim by taking dangerous things, and there was no fact that he did not agree with the victim by generating food waste, and there was no fact that the head of the victim was calculated with A

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

C. As to the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below [2019 Highest 1560], the defendant was in a state of mental disability due to the exploitation at the time of the above crime.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is deemed that the prosecutor’s judgment on the assertion of abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution by a biased investigation significantly deviates from the right to institute a public prosecution by arbitrarily exercising the right to institute a public prosecution and giving substantial disadvantages to the defendant, such exercise of the right to institute a public prosecution can be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do482, Apr. 27, 2004).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do577, Dec. 10, 1999). In this case, there is no objective basis to deem that a prosecutor’s indictment in this case significantly deviates from the right of prosecution discretion by giving substantial disadvantages to the defendant due to the prosecutor’s arbitrary exercise of the right of prosecution.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the execution of a detention warrant should be completed within 48 hours from the time of arrest.