1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed all the claims of the plaintiffs even if the evidence and the result of pleadings submitted in the court of first instance were neglected, is justified.

Therefore, this court's reasoning, including the allegations and evidence of the parties added in the trial, shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for further determination by supplementing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following Paragraph

2. The main purpose of the plaintiffs' assertion in the additional decision-making trial is that the defendants, who were the officers of the deceased, should pay attention to the deceased's adaptation to his own life, but rather, they did cruel acts, such as serious quality, to the deceased, and even though the deceased did not seem to have any special suicide immediately before his/her placement, they suffered serious mental pain by being subjected to the above harsh acts from the Defendants after his/her placement and caused suicide. Therefore, the defendants' responsibility for suicide should be viewed as gross negligence.

In cases where a public official causes damage to another person in the course of performing his/her duties, not only the State is liable to compensate for damage caused by a tort, but also the public official's individual shall be held liable to compensate for the damage caused by an intentional act or gross negligence. In such cases, the gross negligence of a public official refers to a situation where the public official lacks due care, even if he/she does not pay considerable attention to the extent of ordinary demand, if he/she takes a little attention, it can be easily illegal or harmful result, but it can only be predicted, and it is too difficult for the public official to do so.