1. The Defendant: KRW 58,894,33, and KRW 30,00,00 for Plaintiff A and KRW 30,00 for Plaintiff F, G, H, I, and J respectively; and the Defendant’s KRW 8,33,333.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 197, when the Plaintiff was enrolled in the department of social studies at the K University literature and the college, the Plaintiff A’s Emergency Measure No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order.

(2) On May 19, 197, a warrant of detention was issued on May 19, 197, and around that time, a warrant of detention was issued on May 19, 197. Around that time, the Seoul District Criminal Court was prosecuted on the charge of violation. The facts charged are as stated in the facts charged in the attached Table 2. 2) The above court rendered on October 28, 197, the judgment below convicted Plaintiff A of the above facts charged and sentenced Plaintiff A of three years and suspension of qualification.

3) The Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 77No1931, and the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court on February 23, 1978, and sentenced the Plaintiff to two years and suspension of qualifications for the Plaintiff A. The Plaintiff appealed against this judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court 78Do668, May 9, 1978, but the said appellate court judgment became final and conclusive as it was upon dismissal of the final appeal on May 9, 1978. 4) In accordance with the above decision, the Plaintiff was reinstated for 743 days from May 19, 197 to May 31, 1979.

B. On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff A filed a petition for a new trial on the said final judgment with Seoul High Court 2012No10.

Accordingly, the above court rendered a ruling of commencing a retrial on May 23, 2013, and rendered a ruling of commencing a new trial on June 26, 2013, which violated the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose without satisfying the requirements for triggering the emergency measures. Thus, it is unconstitutional since the Emergency Measure No. 9 was violated before it was revoked or invalidated, and thus, is null and void as it is unconstitutional in light of the current Constitution, and even in light of the current Constitution, the facts charged against the plaintiff A constitute "when the defendant was not guilty" under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.