The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Summary of Facts charged

1. The Defendant was in charge of the so-called “H” investigation from December 2, 2012 to February 8, 2013 while serving as the head of the G police station investigation division.

On April 19, 2013, the Defendant had an interview with the press to the effect that during the above investigation process, the I Regional Police Agency interfered with the investigation by organized external pressure and various means. On the other hand, on June 14, 2013, the prosecution was the I Regional Police Agency at the time of the instant case.

J was prosecuted for non-detention due to the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the abuse of power.

Since then, the Defendant appeared as a witness of K, which was held on August 19, 2013, and testified in relation to the above case, and thereafter, the same year.

8. On October 15 of the same year, the inspection of the state administration by the National Police Agency and the inspection of the state administration by the I Regional Police Agency on October 17 of the same year was conducted as a witness and testified.

On the other hand, the J was not guilty in the first instance court on February 6, 2014, in the appellate court on June 5, 2014, and in the appellate court on January 29, 2015, the judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2015.

2. On December 12, 2012, testimony related to the process of failure to file an application for a warrant of search and seizure is related to the reason that the G police station investigation team around December 12, 2012 did not file an application for a warrant of search and seizure, such as L staff M’s computer, etc. on or around December 12, 2012, the G police station investigation team around the same day decided to apply for a warrant in consideration of the seriousness of the case while recognizing the lack of vindication of M’s criminal facts, and the investigative team started to receive the warrant documents, but at the same time, the investigative team started to receive the warrant documents. - The prosecutor may dismiss the warrant where he/she files an application for a warrant of search and seizure with a superior authority, such as the N director of the National Police Agency and the I Regional Police Agency J of the I Regional Police Agency, etc. who reported such fact, and, if so, may adversely affect the coordination of police rights.

“On the receipt of the opinion of the Party, etc., - The head of the G Police Station who has served the opinion, P shall be 0,000.