beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.25 2015나55249

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff was admitted to the Yacheon Prison to the Gwangju District Court (2nd), Gwangju High Court, and Suwon District Court (2nd), on four occasions during which he was admitted as an unconvicted prisoner.

The instant prison correctional officer excessively infringed the Plaintiff’s personal rights and physical freedom by using excessive protective devices during the course of escort for the purpose of statutory withdrawal, thereby causing physical pain, serious insult, and mental impulses to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 4 million won (i.e., one million won per time x 4 times) and damages for delay.

B. Specific contents of tort 1) If a correctional officer uses a guard, he/she used only one lock when he/she uses a guard, but the prison officer used two locks to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff’s use of a guard is not clear in the risk of escape, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use of a guard should follow the method of a guard. However, in the case of the use of a guard, the prison officer used a guard by the method of a person’s body. 2) The prison officer of the net prison used a guard by the method of a person’s body.

C) The instant prison officer did not present to the Plaintiff the reason for the Plaintiff to use the franchise in a way of being on board. (D) Even though the instant prison officer, at the time of long-term transfer, the instant prison officer did not take such measures as the instant prison officer did not take any such measures, despite the fact that the instant prison officer had to have the Plaintiff expected to be able to be able to be able

2. Determination

(a) as shown in the separate sheet of the relevant regulations;

B. Article 172(1)1 and 2 [Attachment 6] and [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act as to whether the use of two locks is unlawful, provide for a correctional officer’s method of use of locking for prisoners. However, there is no restriction on the number of locking used.