1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on the charge of fraud with the purport of “D, the president of the CHousing Redevelopment Project Association,” stating that “I would make two punishments, and would be able to receive more compensation for moving expenses of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff.”

B. On June 20, 2012, E affiliated with the Seongbuk-dong Police Station investigated the above case of accusation (hereinafter “subject case”), and sent the said case to the Seoul Dong-dong District Prosecutors’ Office.

On August 6, 2012, the defendant, who is the public prosecutor belonging to the Seoul Dong District Public Prosecutor's Office, decided not to prosecute the case.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was transferred to the prosecutor’s office, and the Defendant led the Plaintiff to manipulate the investigation records by sending the case to the police station, and did not properly investigate D while carrying out human rights violations conducting an investigation by false verbal detection devices, and D submitted a written reply to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s wife F prepared a written agreement” in the relevant administrative litigation, without confirming whether the Plaintiff’s wife is the Plaintiff’s wife, and committed an illegal act, such as neglecting his/her duties by closing the relevant case.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the solatium amounting to KRW 70,000,00, KRW 12,000,000, KRW 12,750,000, and the business loss amounting to KRW 12,750,00, and the damages for delay on each of the above money.

3. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 6 through 18, and Gap evidence Nos. 19-1, 2, and 20 through 29 is insufficient to recognize that the defendant committed an illegal act such as manipulation of investigation records, violation of human rights, or abandonment of duties as alleged above by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

4...