The appeal is dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the head of Suwon District Court No. 2, 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance “Sawon District Court 2015Do1658”.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Unlike the final judgment of the court, the non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor has no effect of one-time absence, and thus the prosecutor once issued a non-prosecution disposition against the case.

Even if a public prosecutor is not bound, he/she may institute a new public prosecution without being detained (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do2020, Nov. 10, 1987). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation that a public prosecutor again institutes a new public prosecution in this case against the principle of no objection, etc. in light of the principle of no objection.

In addition, the argument that there was an error of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the criminal intent of an accusation in the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant asserts that it is not the ground for appeal or that it is not subject to the judgment by the court below

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant are not legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the appeal is dismissed. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Ywon District Court Branch of Suwon District Court 2015Do1658" in the 15th sentence is clear that it is a clerical error in the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1658. Thus, it is decided to rectify it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.