Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.
3. Costs of appeal and appeal.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Ma2, 2013, and Article 61(1) of the Court Organization Act (hereinafter “instant detention order”). The Plaintiff appealed on July 23, 2013 against the instant detention order and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 24, 2013, on the ground that “the offender interfered with the progress of the trial, such as interfering with the progress of the trial while attending the court on July 23, 2013, and seriously damaging the prestige’s prestige’s prestige’s prestige’s prestige under the order of the presiding judge.” The Plaintiff’s appeal against the detention order of this case was dismissed on July 24, 2013 (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Mo44), and on August 2, 2013.
B. The defendant is the presiding judge who rendered the detention decision of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 3 and 4, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the court of detention in this case did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to notify the content of the offense and to defend himself/herself, ② did not notify the plaintiff of his/her right to refuse to make statements and the right to appoint a defense counsel, ③ did not inform the court dissatisfied with the plaintiff, ④ did not allow the plaintiff to file a request for recording, ④ did not keep stenographic records, sound recordings, or video works separate from the protocol of trial. ⑤ The plaintiff who raised an objection against the court of detention in this case by asserting that the plaintiff had committed a tort threatening "we need to reduce the detention period of 20 days." The plaintiff filed an objection against the court of detention in this case, and sought compensation for damages that the defendant paid KRW 20,000,000,000,000 for the actual income during the detention period of 20 days and KRW 14 million in total.
(b) Markets: