[Judgment of the court below]

Cheong-gu Red ○

Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the public representative

Prosecutor of the Western District Prosecutors' Office in Seoul

The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Case summary

The following facts are recognized according to the records of this case and the evidentiary materials of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office No. 16179, 2002, the records of non-prosecutions case).

A. On April 30, 2002, the claimant filed a complaint with the Secretariat of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office (the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's office and one other

The defendant, the defendant, is the head of the ○○ Housing Association in the ○○ Housing Association, and the same Kim ○ is the person who was a member of the above housing association in collusion.

Around October 13, 1998, the defendant Kim Jong-soo, a defendant's domicile, entered into a sales contract that sells 33-type apartment buildings located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which he/she bought to the claimant for the purchase price of 65 million won. The payment of the purchase price is set-off against the loan obligation to the same Kim Chang-dong claimant. On September 28, 1999, the plaintiff deposited 40,069,480 won with the above housing association. The claimant filed a lawsuit against the representative of the ○○○ Housing Association's Association for the claim for the return of the purchase price with the Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch 2000,13178, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the representative of the ○○ Housing Association's Association Branch of Seoul District Court Branch 2001Kadan20779 against two other defendant Kim Young-dong, the defendant's 200, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of ownership registration, etc.

On or around February 10, 2001, the civil case of the Southern Branch of the Seoul District Court and on or around July 27, 2001, the briefs and answers submitted to the civil department of the Western Branch of the Seoul District Court (the Statement of Calculation of Balance) and the defendant Kim Jong-○, the defendant around January 10, 1995

(2) Although the above apartment sales contract was lawful with the permission of the office of Gangseo-gu to resell the above apartment loan of 100,000 won between 200 won and 300,000 won, it was false to sell the above apartment house to 300,000 won without the consent of the general meeting of the association members, and (3) even if the claimant deposited the above apartment house in the name of 40,069,480 won under the name of 300,000 won, it is false to enter the above apartment loan of 100,000 won and 97,000 won, the amount of the above apartment loan of 10,000 won and 97,000 won, 197,000 won and 10,000 won, 196,000 won, 196,000 won, 30,0000 won,00 won,00 won, 196.

B. On July 29, 2002, the respondent investigated the above accusation case, and subsequently rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant on July 29, 2002.

C. The appellant appealed against the above non-prosecution disposition, and filed a complaint and re-appeal as prescribed by the Prosecutor’s Office Act, but all of the appeals were dismissed, the appellee filed a petition for adjudication on constitutional complaint on January 7, 2003, asserting that the respondent was infringed on the claimant’s right to equality and right to state his opinion on trial procedure guaranteed by the Constitution due to the above non-prosecution disposition.

2. Determination

In examining the records in detail, it is not proven that the respondent has committed an investigation against justice and equity with respect to the above case, or that there was a serious error affecting the interpretation of the Constitution, the application of Acts, or the determination of evidence, which affected the decision of the non-prosecution disposition. On the other hand, there is no data to regard the above non-prosecution disposition by the respondent as an arbitrary disposition to the extent that the Constitutional Court is involved, and thus, it cannot

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

March 27, 2003

Justices Yoon Young-young of the presiding Justice

Justices Han Han-tae

Justices Ha Young-chul

Justices Kim Young-il

Jurisdiction of Justice

State Judgment Officer Kim Jae-soo

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Song Jin-in-Law

Justices Cho Jong-soo