The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment below that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in the absence of a fact-finding that, while driving a taxi, E merely interfered with the taxi business for one hour by blocking the taxi and assaulting the taxi business.

In addition, the prosecutor's discriminatory prosecution against the defendant without indictment of E which interferes with the defendant's business as above is invalid as it is unlawful.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below claiming a mistake of facts, the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant committed an assault against the victim by smuggling as stated in the judgment of the court below, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

Pursuant to Articles 246 and 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor may institute a public prosecution in cases where it is deemed reasonable to impose criminal sanctions on the grounds of the elements of the crime, while he/she has discretion to not institute a public prosecution in consideration of the matters of Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, the effect of the prosecution can be denied if the prosecutor seems to have significantly exceeded the discretionary power by arbitrarily exercising the authority of prosecution against the defendant, and the arbitrary exercise of the authority of prosecution is not sufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least by negligence or at least with any intention.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3026 delivered on September 7, 2001). In light of the records, the prosecutor tried to prosecute only the defendant through reasonable judgment because it is difficult to determine whether E interfered with the business of the defendant.