[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in case where the deceased Gap's act was determined and announced as pro-Japanese behavior under Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule, which was performed as the Domination of the Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Japanese Domination of Korean Domination of Korean Domination of Korean Domination of Korean Domination of

In the case of the senior officer who was in charge of the key role of the Japanese colonial rule and the colonial rule, the act of acting as a witness itself constitutes pro-Japanese and anti-national acts under Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") through the decision of the Committee for Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts, barring any special circumstance. However, the term of office is very short or formally short, and in fact, only in exceptional cases, such as where it was revealed that the term of office was very short or that he/she participated in or supported the Japanese colonial rule, it shall be deemed that he/she is excluded from the pro-Japanese act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du29123, Apr. 28, 2011).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the deceased's non-party 1 and the deceased's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted 5's non-indicted.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Special Act and in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the ground of appeal.

The allegation that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was erroneous in the procedure, such as not giving the deceased’s lineal descendant an opportunity to state his opinion, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since it did not assert the grounds that were not asserted until the closing of argument in the lower court.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)