All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The prosecutor has discretion to institute a public prosecution and not institute a public prosecution, taking into account Article 51 of the Criminal Act, where it is deemed reasonable to impose criminal sanctions by falling under the elements of a crime.

(Article 246 and Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, in a case where it is deemed that a prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her authority to institute a public prosecution and gives substantial disadvantage to the defendant, such exercise of authority to institute a public prosecution can be denied as it is an abuse of authority to institute a public prosecution. However, the arbitrary exercise of authority to institute a public prosecution is not sufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least by

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Do577 delivered on December 10, 199, 2001Do3026 delivered on September 7, 2001, etc.). The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution on the ground that the investigation and prosecution of this case were made with malicious intent to dile the Defendant who presented critical opinions about the current regime or to dil the illegality of the civilian temple, on the grounds that the investigation and prosecution of this case were conducted for the following reasons: (a) compared with the investigation process of similar cases, it cannot be inferred that the investigation and prosecution of this case were conducted for the purpose of dilution the Defendant who presented critical opinions about the current regime; and (b) compared with the investigation process of the similar case, it does not appear that there was an unreasonable investigation, such as pressure or unnecessary summons of the Defendant and its surrounding persons.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have been based on the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to abuse of the right of prosecution, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

B. Meritorious legal principles (1).