The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, who was indicted prior to the instant crime, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and was finalized on June 19, 2018 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Da2165, 2432, 2604 (Joint)) and was investigated by an investigative agency together with each offense of the separate case (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Da2165, 2432, 2604 (Joint)), and should have been tried in a single trial proceeding.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor's negligence or illegal omission of the person in charge separated only the crime of this case from a separate case, and then subsequently indicted on July 24, 2018 constitutes abuse of the right of prosecution.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is deemed that a prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her authority to institute a public prosecution against the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles that the prosecution significantly deviates from the power to institute a public prosecution by giving substantial disadvantages to the defendant, such exercise of the authority to institute a public prosecution can be denied as it is an abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution. Here, arbitrary exercise of the authority to institute a public prosecution is not sufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing duties and at least dolusium is not sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3026, Sept. 7, 2001). Thus, the public prosecutor’s indictment cannot be deemed to have remarkably deviates from the power to institute a public prosecution on the grounds that the public prosecutor

(2) The records of this case include the following facts: