A. (i) On August 3, 1981, the Defendant investigators conducted an investigation under confinement with the Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B on August 14, 1981, Plaintiff C on August 16, 1981, Plaintiff C on August 16, 1981, Plaintiff D, August 2, 1981, without a warrant, and conducted an incidental act without a warrant on August 1, 1981 (Plaintiff A, B), or September 7, 1981 (Plaintiff C, D, and E) by blocking contact with the outside until a detention warrant is issued.

B. On January 22, 1982, the above plaintiffs were convicted of violating the National Security Act on the grounds that they were indicted on the grounds that they were in violation of the Act, etc. on May 22, 1982 at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 82No771) and the appeal was dismissed on September 14, 1982.

As a result of the judgment of the court of first instance, two years of imprisonment for a year from the date of imprisonment to the date of release (date of detention), two years of suspension of qualifications for two years, two years of suspension of qualifications for two years, three years of suspension of qualifications for three years from August 3, 1981 to May 22, 1982 (293), three years of suspension of qualifications for three years, two years of suspension of qualifications for two years, four years of suspension of qualifications for four years to the date of suspension of execution, one year of imprisonment for two years from August 14, 1981 to May 22, 1982 (282 days of suspension of execution), three years of suspension of execution, three years of imprisonment for two years of imprisonment for two years from August 16, 1981 to May 22, 1982 (280 days of suspension of execution), two years of suspension of qualifications for two years of imprisonment for two years from August 22, 1981 to 29 years (29.28 years of suspension of execution).

B. On June 15, 2009, the Committee on Criminal Compensation for the Truth and Reconciliation of the Fact-finding and the judgment of new trial, and the Act on Criminal Compensation for the Truth and Reconciliation of the Act on Criminal Compensation (hereinafter “the Act on Criminal Compensation”) decided to ascertain the truth that “The Act on Criminal Compensation for the Truth and Security Commissioner’s investigators in the Presidential Security Headquarters followed by the former people related to the former Civil Service, K, the Plaintiff, L, M, N, etc. without a warrant and forced them to make a statement through an adviser, harsh act, and forced the prosecutor to make a statement through an adviser, harsh act,” while “the State is against the suspect during the investigation process.”