손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition, the part of the first instance court’s decision No. 6th 20th 20th , “Plaintiff F and G, the spouse of the deceased E and G, the heir at the time of the deceased’s death.”
Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “In the judgment of the court of first instance, there is a possibility that the judgment of the court of first instance is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the facts charged against the Plaintiff A’s violation of the National Security Act, violation of the anti-public law, espionage, violation of the National Security Act, violation of the National Security Act, and violation of anti-public law are not proven,” in the first instance judgment of this case.
Part 10 of the Decision of the first instance shall add the following:
On the other hand, the plaintiffs were subject to illegal confinement and illegal search by the plaintiff A and H solely based on each statement of recognition, detention warrant, notice of detention, and seizure protocol submitted in the trial process of the decision subject to a retrial of this case. However, although the above plaintiffs could have known that they made a confession without voluntariness at the investigative agency, the judges in charge of the trial did not confirm it properly and did not confirm it and did not accept it as evidence the examination protocol of investigation agency's preparation of the above plaintiffs, a written statement of seizure articles illegally collected without warrant, and the judgment of conviction against the above plaintiffs also constitute tort.
In this regard, the judge did not comply with the provisions of the law.
Even if the act of judicial duty is an illegal act as stipulated in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, it is caused by the state's liability.