The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her authority to institute a public prosecution to give substantial disadvantage to the defendant, it can be denied the validity of the public prosecution by regarding abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution. Here, the arbitrary exercise of the authority to institute a public prosecution is not sufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least with any intention to do so.

(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the premise that the instant indictment is valid does not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the abuse of public prosecution power, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since each crime of this case and each crime of this case for which judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below can be found to have mitigated the punishment of this case in consideration of equity in cases where each crime of this case and each of the above crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the court below cannot accept the allegation in the ground of appeal purporting that the judgment below

3. Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.