beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) on October 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint with Suwon District Court C on the ground that he/she raised a perjury in the Suwon District Court 2008No5280.
(2) The Defendant, who was investigating the instant accusation case, unilaterally believe only the evidence submitted by C and did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion on the evidence, and sent it to the prosecutor without prosecution.
(3) Since the Defendant’s above act is unlawful, the Plaintiff sought damages of KRW 50,000,000, which is part of the damages incurred by C’s perjury, as the damages incurred by C’s perjury.
B. (1) Determinations on whether or not an investigation is conducted prior to the commencement of an investigation and a suspicion of a crime based thereon, namely, whether or not to commence an investigation or to terminate an investigation activity, are the act that is reasonably delegated by the investigative agency to exercise the authority assigned to it in response to all circumstances.
Therefore, in order to evaluate the judgment of an investigative agency as illegal with regard to the investigation activities and the commencement of an investigation, it should be recognized that the investigative agency’s failure to take necessary measures according to specific circumstances is considerably unreasonable or that it has reached the extent that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical and logical rules, in light of the legislative intent and purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act.
(2) In light of the overall purport of pleadings, the defendant who was in charge of the case (No. 2009 type No. 92800) that the plaintiff filed a complaint in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da14932, Nov. 23, 2009) comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the statement of each complainant on Oct. 28, 2009; and (b) each protocol of suspect examination on Nov. 23, 2009 and December 4, 2009; and (c) the prosecutor prepared each protocol of suspect examination on Dec. 23, 2009 and sent it to the prosecution without prosecution; and (d) the prosecutor made the above protocol of suspect examination on Dec. 23, 2009.