The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. With respect to the assertion of abuse of power to institute a public prosecution, the public prosecutor may institute a public prosecution in a case where it is deemed reasonable to impose criminal sanctions on the grounds of the elements of the crime, and may decide not to institute a public prosecution in consideration of the matters

(Article 246 and Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In a case where it is deemed that a prosecutor has remarkably deviates from the power of prosecution by arbitrarily exercising the power of prosecution to give substantial disadvantages to the defendant, the effect of prosecution can be denied by deeming it as abuse of the power of prosecution. Here, arbitrary exercise of the power of prosecution is insufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least with any intention to do so.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9737, Feb. 14, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9349, Jul. 12, 2012). The lower court determined that the instant public prosecution by the prosecutor, who first prosecuted part of the instant facts charged and additionally prosecuted the remainder for three months after the date of the prosecution, is difficult to view that the instant public prosecution by the public prosecutor, which clearly deviates from the power of prosecution discretion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on abuse of prosecution power

2. As to the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) on the grounds indicated

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the principle of substantial direct examination or the principle of court-oriented trials, or by violating logical and empirical