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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 20 million per annum from November 4, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The reasons why a member should explain this case are as follows, except for the portion of "(3) negligent assertion" in the 14th judgment of the court of first instance as follows, the reasons why the decision of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is by Article 420

2. The part to be mard;

(3) The assertion of negligence

Next, the defendant asserts that there is no express provision under the current law and the right to participate in the interrogation of a suspect is not recognized, and that there is no intention or negligence on the part of the prosecutor's refusal disposition of each of the instant cases according to the direction of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office' Office

However, as mentioned above, the restriction on the right to participate in the interrogation of a suspect is illegal. The prosecutor in charge was aware of the contents of the existing precedents regarding the right to contact and communication of counsel as a legal expert, and the court's decision on October 31, 2003, prior to the ruling on November 3, 2003, that the right to participate in the interrogation of a suspect should be allowed. The plaintiff 1 is a German citizen residing in Germany for about 37 years and returned home in Germany, and there is a high need to allow the participation of counsel in the interrogation of a suspect due to language and emotional problems. Furthermore, in this case, since the court's decision on the right to participate in the interrogation of a suspect was not allowed and detained, the court's decision on the grounds and contents of the right to participate in the interrogation of a suspect, and there were no special circumstances to recognize that the plaintiffs' right to participate in the interrogation of a suspect was not allowed due to the lack of sufficient evidence to view that the plaintiff 1's joint defendant 4 of the first instance court's judgment was not allowed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just with the party members, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)