1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The reasons for the plaintiffs' claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a judicial police officer or a public prosecutor considers that an investigation agency has reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect was suspected of being convicted of a crime by investigating the case, clarifying the truth, and comprehensively taking account of the collected and collected evidence, he/she may transfer the case to the prosecutor's office or institute a public prosecution to the court according to the opinion of prosecution or to the court according to prescribed procedures. As such, in an objective view, if there are reasonable grounds for a judicial police officer or a public prosecutor to suspect that the suspect is likely to be convicted, then the judgment of innocence becomes final on the grounds that there is no evidence sufficient to prove the existence of the crime through the subsequent trial process, even if the judgment of an investigation agency is considerably reasonable in light of the empirical rules or logical rules, it shall be deemed that there is a cause attributable only when the judgment of the investigation agency reaches the extent that

(Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23447 Decided February 22, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da203096 Decided February 15, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da203096, Feb. 15,

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in this case is due to Gap evidence No. 1 (a copy of the judgment), and if the above evidence is included in this court, the facts that the plaintiffs were prosecuted for violating the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, the plaintiffs were sentenced to a judgment of innocence (Supreme Court Decision 2016No4607 Decided April 7, 2017) by the Incheon District Court on April 7, 2017, and the prosecutor appealed on the judgment of innocence, but the prosecutor appealed on June 29, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5720 Decided June 29, 2017) and the judgment of innocence against the plaintiffs became final and conclusive.

C. However, it is insufficient to view that the above evidence (Evidence A) alone leads to the extent that it is considerably impossible to affirm the reasonableness of the judgment of an investigative agency in light of the empirical rule or logical rule.