[1] The legal nature of the rights of prisoners in prison and the grounds for restriction

[2] The case holding that the State is responsible for paying consolation money on the ground that the disposition of the prison warden which rejected the writing of the prisoner was unlawful, although it is not likely to undermine the security and order of the correctional institution or adversely affect the correction (a recognized amount: 200,000 won)

[1] The right to write is generally recognized as a fundamental right, unless it is specifically limited by law, such as physical freedom and expression. The warden of the prison shall permit an application for writing by a prisoner, except where the contents of documents to write are likely to undermine the security and order of correctional institutions, etc., and where it is inappropriate for correction (Article 33-3(1)1 and 2 of the Criminal Administration Act).

[2] In a case where a prisoner who is classified as the subject of special management with the past record of escape applied for a written permission to disclose information to the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, etc., and the warden of prison rejected the request, the case holding that the defendant is liable to pay consolation money on the ground that the disposition of refusing writing was unlawful, even though it is not likely to harm the safety and order of the correctional institution, etc. or

[1] Article 33-3 (1) of the Criminal Administration Act / [2] Article 33-3 (1) of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 2006Na998 decided April 26, 2007

March 19, 2008

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from September 30, 2003 to April 16, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from September 22, 2003 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 4-1, 4-2, and evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 6-1, 2, 3, and 7.

A. The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment of 25 years on August 21, 2001 due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Robbery) and the crime of special escape, and was confined to the Gwangju Correctional Institution on June 28, 2002.

B. The head of the Cheongsong prison was classified as the subject of special management in the court for the Plaintiff’s injury to the escorting correctional officer and the history of escape, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the Cheongsong prison athletic meeting on September 22, 2003.

C. On September 29, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for a written permit with the Ministry of Justice, the Cheongsong prison, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs for the information disclosure on the grounds for the above treatment. Since the content of the Cheongsong prison is unclear, the head of the Cheongsong prison applied for a written permit again,

D. Upon the Plaintiff’s application for a re-entry permit on September 30, 2003, the head of the Cheongju prison, deeming the Plaintiff’s content of the Plaintiff’s application for information disclosure pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and constitutes a ground for petition under Article 6 of the Criminal Administration Act, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs rejected the Plaintiff

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the act of the head of the Clean Prison, who rejected writing, is illegal, the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's application for the disclosure of information to the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs is related to the treatment of the plaintiff, and the above agencies shall again refer the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information to the correction bureau or the Ministry of Justice, which is the competent department, and thus, it is not helpful for the plaintiff's remedy for infringement of rights. Since the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information to the correction department of the Ministry of Justice, the correction department of the Ministry of Justice, and the Cheongong prison already accepted the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information by permitting the plaintiff's writing to the correction department of the Ministry of Justice and the Cheongong prison, there is no practical benefit for other agencies

(b) Markets:

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

The right to write is a general fundamental right unless it is specifically limited by law as a content of physical freedom and expression. The warden of the prison shall permit an application for writing by a prisoner, except where the contents of documents to write are likely to undermine the security and order of correctional institutions, etc. and where it is inappropriate for correction (Article 33-3 (1) 1 and 2 of the Criminal Administration Act).

In the instant case, since the document written by the Plaintiff is claimed for the disclosure of information on the grounds of personal movement, there is no room to deem that there is a concern for impairing the security and order of correctional institutions, etc. or other inappropriate influence for edification, and it does not constitute cases where the Plaintiff may file a petition, and where the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure is inappropriate for edification to deny writing only on the ground that there is no expectation that the Plaintiff would be again transferred to the competent department, or that the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure would be made again, or that there is no practical benefit in requesting information disclosure, the disposition taken by the head of the Cheongong prison which rejected the Plaintiff’s written request constitutes an unlawful act infringing the Plaintiff’

(2) Scope of damages

Since it is apparent that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the above refusal disposition of writing, it is in light of the empirical rule that the defendant is obligated to do so in money, and considering the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the degree of infringement of the plaintiff's rights and the degree of infringement, and the process of filing the application for writing, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be compensated by the defendant as 20 million won.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 200,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from September 30, 2003, which is the date of tort, to April 16, 2008, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions are unfair, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the part against the plaintiff which ruled the above payment order among the judgment of first instance is revoked, and order the defendant to pay the above amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided

Judges Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)