1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation portion are all satisfied.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the plaintiffs’ assertion is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, they are cited by the main text of

2. Determination

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the exercise of emergency measures, investigation based on the exercise of emergency measures and investigation and the establishment of tort by itself are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. In a case where the judgment of innocence pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the Act on the Punishment of the Defendant, was finalized on the ground that the first instance court’s violation of Article 325 of the Emergency Decree No. 9, which was applied to the Defendant, was unconstitutional and invalid, the case where the judgment of innocence was rendered in the judgment for retrial due to the illegal act committed by the State agency during the investigation, barring any other special circumstances, cannot be deemed as a case where the judgment of innocence was rendered. Thus, solely on the ground that the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, the reinstatement by the judgment of retrial cannot be immediately deemed as a national tort, and it cannot be deemed as a damage caused by the illegal act committed by the State agency, which was in the investigation process

In this case, it is necessary to separately examine whether there is a causal relationship between the illegal act committed in the course of investigation and the conviction, and accordingly determine whether to recognize the State's liability for compensation for the duplicating of conviction.

Therefore, the contents of the facts charged, the existence of evidence to acknowledge guilty, the reasons for the decision of commencing a new trial, and the reasons why the person involved in the case, including the creditor, was rendered a judgment of innocence and the reasons therefor.