1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiff A is a person who runs the personal broadcast of "D" through the Internet as the current commentist, and the plaintiff B is his/her child. He/she, an employee of the National Intelligence Service, was a member of the National Intelligence Service, using the Internet clinic called "F" and up to February 2, 2012, posted the comments like the attached list (hereinafter "instant comments") on G Internet website from January 201 to February 201, thereby committing criminal acts such as violation of Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against the plaintiffs.

The act of posting the comments above (hereinafter “the act of posting the comments”) was conducted by a public official of the NIS who is an employee of the National Intelligence Service to criticize the Plaintiff who has an opposing opinion in the course of manipulating public opinion on a specific political issue related to the government policy. As such, the act of posting the comments is related to the duties and actual external shapes of the National Intelligence Service staff.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the purport of the claim as the state compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above tort by H, who is a public official of H.

2. Determination

A. "To perform the duties" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act includes acts of a public official directly or closely related to such acts, and in determining this, if the act itself appears to be an act of a public official by objectively observing the appearance of the act itself, the act shall be deemed to have been performed by the public official even though it is not actually a duty, or if it was not a subjective intention of the person who committed the act, the act shall be deemed to have been performed by the public official.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da26805 delivered on January 14, 2005).

Basic Facts

According to Gap evidence 8-2, Gap evidence 19-1 through 3, and Gap evidence 22-2, the defendant's National Intelligence Service is affiliated with the National Intelligence Service.