A. On May 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs made a demonstration at a crosswalk, etc. in front of the exit of Seoul FF Station 6, around 22:00 on May 18, 2014. In suppression of the demonstration, the Defendant arrested the Plaintiffs without meeting the requirements for arresting flagrant offenders, and was placed in the detention room, etc. of the police station until May 20, 2014 without any need for investigation.

Meanwhile, in the course of illegal arrest of a flagrant offender, Plaintiff E suffered a violence from a police officer belonging to the Defendant and caused approximately 10 cm of the complete heat of the right arms, etc.

B. The Plaintiff A, B, and C, etc. were arrested as a flagrant offender and forced the Defendant to feel a sense of shame by force without any legal basis during the course of entering the prison of the Dongdaemun Police Station from May 19, 2014 to May 17:00, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 12514, May 19, 2014>

B. According to the scope of damages compensation, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim, as the defendant is obliged to compensate all damages suffered by the above tort.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

가. 주장 Ⅰ에 대하여 ⑴ 관련법리 ㈎ 법령에 대한 해석이 복잡, 미묘하여 워낙 어렵고 이에 대한 학설, 판례조차 귀일되어 있지 못하여 의의가 없을 수 없는 경우에 공무원이 그 나름대로 신중을 다하여 합리적인 근거를 찾아 그 중 어느 한 설을 취하여 내린 해석이 대법원이 가린바 그것과 같지 않아 결과적으로 잘못된 해석에 돌아가고, 그에 따른 처리가 역시 결과적으로 위법하게 되어 그 법령의 부당집행이라는 결과를 빚었다

However, it is difficult to expect to an average public official in good faith who is above such treatment method.