2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On September 15, 1981, the Plaintiff A voluntarily operated with the Sungnam Police Station as a charge of violating the National Security Act, and received an investigation in the office or the protection room from the time of the execution of the detention warrant until the 21st of the same month. On October 13, 1981, the Plaintiff A was detained as a charge of violating the National Security Act as indicated in the separate sheet by Suwon District Court 81No3160 on October 13, 1981.

On February 18, 1982, the above court convicted the plaintiff A of the above facts charged, and sentenced the plaintiff A to two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and two years of suspension of qualification.

B. On May 11, 1984, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds that the judgment of the first instance is justifiable to find the Plaintiff guilty of the facts charged, but the sentencing is somewhat heavy, and sentenced the Plaintiff A for a one-year period of suspension of execution and suspension of qualification for one-year period of imprisonment.

(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.

Plaintiff

A appealed to the judgment subject to a review by Supreme Court Decision 84Do1319, but on October 10, 1984, the judgment subject to a review became final and conclusive as the final appeal was dismissed.

Plaintiff

A on February 17, 2014, the Suwon District Court 2014Noo2 filed a petition for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial, and the said court filed the petition for a retrial in the same year.

5. 1. Based on one of the investigators belonging to the Sungnam Police Station, who arrested and investigate Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff was investigated in an unlawful detention state from the forced act form by the investigator belonging to the Sungnam Police Station without a warrant, to the time when a warrant of detention was issued and executed. Such act constitutes an illegal arrest and detention as prescribed in Article 124 of the Criminal Act. Such act constitutes a crime of illegal arrest and detention as prescribed in Article 124 of the Criminal Act. This act constitutes a case where five years have elapsed since the statute of limitations was imposed, and it is impossible to obtain a final judgment thereon. Accordingly, there is a ground for retrial as prescribed in Articles 420 subparag. 7 and 422

The judgment rendered that "the decision subject to a review was rendered and the decision was rendered."

(e)be carried out accordingly;