The fourth, fourth, and fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows:

“1) N.) On July 9, 1975, N was arrested for the police on charges of violating Emergency Measure No. 9 on the date of non-existence, and was detained on July 19, 1975.

(A) Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “If the Emergency Measure No. 9 was issued by the Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Hu689 Decided April 18, 2013, April 2013, 201, the first instance court” at the end of the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment (the date on which a warrant of detention is issued is unclear) shall add the following:

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Since Emergency Decree No. 9 is unconstitutional, the act of issuing the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 itself constitutes a tort under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

B. The investigative agency to which the defendant belongs arrested N without a warrant on suspicion of Emergency Measure No. 9, which is null and void of the unconstitutionality, detained the N in excess of the detention period stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, infringed upon the right to meet and communicate with his/her family members, and prosecuted the N involuntary confession through harsh acts, such as adviser, assault, etc.

In addition, the court sentenced N to the judgment of conviction by applying the Emergency Measure No. 9, which is invalid.

These acts of duties of investigative agencies and judges are also unlawful.

C. The Defendant shall pay the amount of money claimed as consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs, by having been convicted of the N in the above unlawful act.

3. Determination

(a) Emergency Decree No. 9 is itself.