[손해배상(기)][하집1988(1),192]
The case holding that in case where a detention warrant was issued on the basis of the confession forced by the suspect of murder, but the defendant appointed a private defense counsel during the trial process and paid the bail money is a loss in proximate causal relation with coercion of confession by the investigative police officer.
In a case where a detention warrant was issued on the basis of a confession forced by a suspect of murder, but the disbursement of the expenses for the appointment of a lawyer during the trial process of the person becomes final and conclusive as a result of the trial, the State is obligated to compensate for the loss in proximate causal relation with coercion of confession by a police officer who violated the suspicion by the State. However, in the case of murder accused under the Criminal Procedure Act, if there is no private defense counsel, the court must appoint a national identification number and have the defendant get the assistance of the defendant, taking into account the fact that there is no private defense counsel in the case of murder accused, it is reasonable for the State to compensate for only some of the above attorney's expenses as
Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and five others
Korea
1. The defendant,
A. Of the above amounts of KRW 7,528,00 and the above amounts of KRW 2,528,00,000, the amount calculated by applying the annual rate of KRW 5% from April 2, 1986 to April 21, 1988; the amount calculated by applying the annual rate of KRW 25% from the date following the date to the date of full payment to April 21, 198 to the date of full payment; the amount calculated by applying the annual rate of KRW 5% from the date following the date to April 21, 198 to the date of full payment; and
B. The plaintiff 2 shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 2,00,000 won per annum from January 10, 198 to April 21 of the same year, and 25,000 won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are valid.
3. The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendant's own burden.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 2,528,00 among the above amounts of KRW 19,528,000 and the above amounts of KRW 2,528,000 per annum from April 2, 1986 to the rendering of this judgment; the amount of KRW 500 per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment; the amount of the remaining amount shall be 50% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the complaint to the rendering of this judgment; the amount of KRW 3,00,000 per annum from the next day of the service of the complaint to the date of the full payment; the amount of KRW 50,00 per annum from the next day of the service of the complaint to the date of the full payment; and the amount of KRW 250,00 per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
원고 1이 1986.4.2. 전일 23:10경 경기 안성군 공도면 숭두리 입구 용두천둑에서 발생한 망 소외인의 살인사건용의자로 지목되어 안성경찰서 공도지서에 임의동행 형식으로 연행되고 같은 경찰서 소속 직원들에 의해 수사를 받던 중 범행을 자백함으로써 같은 달 5. 구속되어 검찰에 송치된 후 담당검사에 의하여 기소되고 이 법원 86고합 (번호 생략)호 사건으로 재판을 받아 같은 해 10.4. 무죄를 선고받고 항소심인 서을고등법원에서도 1987.1.27. 검사항소기각판결을 선고받아 같은 해 2.3. 검사의 상고포기로 무죄가 확정되어 석방됨으로써 308일간 구금생활을 한 사실은 각 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증의 1, 2(각 판결),을 제5호증의 1, 3, 5(각 진술서), 을 제5호증의 2, 6(각 진술조서)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 위 살인피고사건에 대하여 원고 1에게 무죄가 선고된 이유는 같은 원고의 경찰수사과정에서의 자백은 조사경찰관의 엄문에 의한 것으로 같은 원고가 임의로 진술한 것이 아니라고 의심할 만한 상당한 사유가 있고, 따라서 증거능력있는 유일한 직접증거인 검찰에서의 자백 역시 경찰에서의 엄무에 따른 억압된 심리가 계속된 상태하에서 임의성없이 진술되었다고 보여질 뿐 아니라 범행의 동기도 뚜렷하지 않고 그 자백내용이 범행현장상황이나 범행후의 정황에 부합하지 않는 등 객관적합리성이 결여되었음을 그 이유로 하고 있는 사실, 원고 1은 위 사건의 법정에서 그가 경찰에서 자백을 하게 된 것은 경찰이 연행후 3일간이나 계속 잠을 자지 못하게 하였고 음식물은 물론 물 한모금도 마시지 못하게 하였을 뿐만 아니라 그가 찼던 혁대 또는 심지어는 전자봉 등으로 고문을 가하였기 때문이었다고 진술하고 있는 바, 위와 같은 진술은 동인이 1986.4.2. 18:30경 안성경찰서 공도지서 숙직실로 연행되어 처음에는 계속 범행을 부인하다가 같은 달 4. 밤에 이르러서야 비로소 자백하였고, 다음날 같은 원고를 면회온 그의 처 원고 2에 의해 원고 1의 한쪽 뺨이 부어올라 있는 것이 목격되었으며, 나아가 위와 같이 자백을 하였음에도 불구하고 같은 원고는 그후 면회온 원고 2등에게 주위에 아무도 없는 틈을 이용, 자신은 억울하다고 수차 말한 사실 등을 통해 뒷받침되어 있는 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 이에 어긋나는 을 제3호증, 을 제5호증의 7 내지 11의 기재는 이를 믿지 아니하고, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제2호증, 을 제4호증의 1, 2의 각 기재는 위 인정에 방해가 되지 않고 달리 반증이 없는 바, 그렇다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고 1의 경찰에서의 자백은 진실로 반하여 허위로 자백을 한 것이고 같은 원고가 이와 같이 허위로 자백을 한 것은 자백을 강요하는 당시 수사경찰관들에 의해 폭행 등의 가혹행위를 당하였기 때문이라는 사실을 넉넉히 추인할 수 있으며, 따라서 원고 1은 이와 같은 허위자백의 강요에 의한 자백을 기초로 하여 구속영장이 발부되어 무죄재판이 확정될 때까지 구금을 당한 것이므로 당시 수사를 담당한 경찰관들의 원고 1에 대한 가혹행위와, 같은 원고가 308일간 구금을 당하면서 입은 재산 및 정신적 손해와는 상당인과관계에 있다 할 것이니, 패고 대한민국은 그 소속공무원들의 위와 같은 직무상 불법행위에 대하여 원고 1 및 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 원고 1의 가족들인 나머지 원고들에게 그 재산 및 정신적 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.
2. Scope of damages.
(a) passive damage;
According to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2 (In the No. 1, 1986, No. 5-10 of the evidence No. 4-1, 5-10 of the evidence No. 4-1, 2 (In the No. 1, 1987, No. 1, 200) and the evidence No. 5-10 of the evidence No. 5-10 of the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1 is a person engaged in agriculture and livestock industry as of April 2, 1986, and there are no other objections to the facts that the daily wages of South and North Korea as of April 1, 1986 are 10,11-2,00 won per month. If the facts that the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant were able to engage in agricultural labor are obvious in light of the empirical rule, the actual profits that the plaintiff No. 1 acquired were 252,800 won per month (10,000 won per month or 10 won per year).
(b) Active damages;
In full view of witness testimony such as Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 3 (each receipt) which is recognized to have been established by witness testimony, the plaintiff 1, in the process of being detained as the suspect of the above murder case and being tried as the defendant, appointed 2,00,000 won as the starting fee on April 12, 1986, and 3,000 won as the recompense for innocence on October 14 of the same year, and 2,000 won as the fee for appointment of the above non-party was paid to the above non-party on the 24th day of the same month, and there is no other evidence to prove that the expenses for the appointment of the attorney-at-law have been paid to the above non-party from 00 p.m. to 10 p.
(c) Compensation money;
According to the above evidence No. 5-10 of the plaintiff 1's spouse, the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, and 6 may be recognized as the facts that they are their unmarried children. As seen above, it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff 1 was investigated as a suspect in murder case over 308 days and the remaining plaintiffs in the family relationship recognized as above have suffered a lot of mental pain. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above mental pain of the plaintiff 1 in money. Considering the above circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff 1 in consideration of the background of the above case, the age, living level, family situation, and all the circumstances shown in the argument of the case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to the plaintiff 2,00,000 won, and to the plaintiff 2 as 1,000,000 won, 3,4,56, and 200 won, respectively.
3. Accordingly, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 7,528,00 won per annum (2,528,000 won per annum + attorneys' fees of 3,000,000 won + 2,528,000 won per annum from April 2, 1986, which is the date of tort, to April 21, 198, the civil interest rate of 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; 9% per annum from the following day of this case to the date of this decision; 9% per annum from the following day of this decision to April 21, 198 to the date of this decision; 25% per annum from the day after the date of this decision; 30% per annum from the day of this case to the date of full payment; 40% per annum per annum from the date of this decision to the date of this decision; 30% per annum to the plaintiffs 20.
Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge)