An indictment was filed against 17 defendants for committing the offenses of a restrictive arrangement, receiving something by fraud, and money laundering, although 50 were originally involved in the case. The prosecution decided who to prosecute based on parameters reflecting the severity of the acts.
The Court held that the criteria subject to which the investigation was conducted do not amount to selective enforcement. An indictment may be dismissed if its filing or the conduct of the criminal proceedings are in substantial conflict with the principles of justice and fairness. One of the "prosecutorial misconducts" is selective enforcement, which means that the investigation or prosecution of a defendant while discriminating against it without just cause, such as prosecuting only some of those involved in a particular incident. Nevertheless, for substantive considerations, the prosecution may prosecute only some of those involved, taking into account parameters such as the severity of the offenses, public interest, etc. Here, although not all of those involved were prosecuted, prosecuting 50 of them would have burdened the legal system, prolonged the duration of the trial, and diminished the public interest in its existence. The parameters on the basis of which it was decided who to prosecute are clear and measurable, and reflect the severity of the acts. Therefore, prosecuting only 17 defendants does not amount to selective enforcement.