손해배상(기)
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, including the claim of the plaintiff A and B expanded in the trial of the court is as follows.
1.The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is that "A. (1)" in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court was deleted, and "B. (1) 1) the co-defendant D (hereinafter "D") in the first instance court was "(1)" and "I.D." in the judgment of the first instance court around 02:00 on June 23, 2010, different stolen-friendly signs from each other before and after the 102 X apartment 102 entrance of the Daegu Suwon-gu X apartment in the front and rear white light car, and the person subject to the intensity of human nature was mixed at the front of the above entrance (hereinafter "the 4th, M. (hereinafter "the deceased"), so it was hard to see the latter part of "I.D." with the front line of the judgment of the deceased's "I.D." while driving the above vehicle near the N. D. The deceased and she could not be able to cite the deceased's face and her face to the deceased's end."
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims
A. The police officers of the plaintiffs' assertion caused the death of the deceased on the wind that could not arrest the deceased due to a false investigation, such as discovering a suspected escape, or neglecting inspection or search, even after discovering a vehicle for the purpose on which the deceased was captured, and even after having taken a proposal, the police officers of the defendant's assertion caused the death of the deceased. In light of the police officers' duties that protect the life, body, etc. of the people as their duties, such omission in the process of arrest constitutes a case where the police officers neglected to perform their duties and violated the law, and thus, the defendant constitutes a case where the deceased and his bereaved family members were the victims.