1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. In principle, the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by tort can be determined by the fact-finding court in consideration of all the circumstances. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the amount of consolation money recognized by the court below cannot be deemed to be significantly contrary to the principle of equity. Therefore, the judgment of the court below in this part is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the recognition of victims, the court below rejected the claim made by Plaintiff B, etc. as bereaved family members of the person who made the above sacrifice since there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the past history mediation committee for the settlement of truth (hereinafter “mediation committee”) was a victim of the National Report Federation case, and the evidence, other than the investigation data of the reorganization committee, was prepared after the instant lawsuit, and it is difficult to readily believe it. In light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the evidence submitted by Plaintiff B, etc. cannot be recognized that the person who made the sacrifice was killed due to the unlawful execution of duties by the public officials belonging to the Defendant. Thus, the court below rejected Plaintiff B, etc. as bereaved family members of the person who made the sacrifice.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

(2) Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court also rejected Plaintiff HT, HU, and HV (NS and TY’s wife and NU’s consciousness)’s claim as the victim of the NS or TY case.