1. The Defendant: (a) the cited amount in the attached Form of calculation sheet for the Plaintiffs and each of them, from July 9, 2015 to August 20, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A, B, and C were prosecuted for violation of the National Security Act, violation of the anti-public law, etc. As indicated in the attached facts charged, the former Jeju District Court rendered a judgment of conviction for one year and one year of suspension of qualification as well as one year. On November 12, 1976, both Defendant 3 and prosecutor appealed. The Gwangju High Court (No. 76No638) reversed the first instance judgment on April 14, 197 on the ground of unfair sentencing on April 14, 197, and sentenced three persons to a suspended sentence of one year and one year of suspension of qualification for each of them (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment of retrial”) and became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment of retrial”).

(2) Meanwhile, on June 5, 1976, three police officers from the information3rd Gun Police Station were arrested without a warrant on June 17, 1976, and were detained without a warrant for 13 days until a warrant of detention was executed on June 17, 1976. During the investigation, three were detained for 314 days until a sentence of a judgment subject to review was issued on April 14, 197.

B. On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff E and C filed a request for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with the Gwangju High Court Decision 1) Plaintiff D and B’s son’s father, and Plaintiff E and C’s son’s children filed a request for a new trial on the judgment subject to new trial. On October 8, 2014, the court recognized that the investigators who investigated the facts charged in the judgment subject to new trial committed an offense falling under Article 124 (Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Confinement) of the Criminal Act and Article 125 (Assault and Cruel Act) of the Criminal Act, including assault and cruel act in the course of the investigation, etc., and that the investigators committed an offense falling under Article 420 subparag. 7 and Article 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act (five years) upon the completion of the statute of limitations (five years) and decided to commence a new trial on the judgment subject to new trial in accordance with the foregoing case.