1. Among the parts against plaintiffs Y, Z, D, AA, AB, and AC of the judgment of the first instance, each of them becomes final and conclusive by the judgment of remand.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited as it is in accordance with

2. Determination

A. 1) With respect to the plaintiffs' claims, this Court's explanation about this part of the part against the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the plaintiff's portion of the consolation money for the damage of the network AZ), and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC (excluding the part of the consolation money for the damage of the network AZ), AA, AB, and D (the part of the consolation money for the damage of the network AZ), and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the defendant separately managed them after the release of the plaintiff AL, plaintiff AM, and the plaintiff D, and in particular, recognized the fact that the plaintiff A, the plaintiff AM, the plaintiff, the plaintiff AM, the plaintiff D monitoring, the plaintiff D was not conducted or selected.

According to the above facts, Plaintiff Y (the wife of Plaintiff AL, marriage on June 24, 1980), Plaintiff Z (the wife of Plaintiff AM, marriage on May 22, 1980), and net AZ (the plaintiff D's wife on December 20, 1978) did not directly suffer from the illegal arrest, detention, trial, or execution of punishment. However, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff Y, Plaintiff Z, and net AZ suffered from the illegal monitoring or inspection of Plaintiff Y, Plaintiff Y, and its family members by the police or staff of the Central Information Department, etc. who belong to the above Defendant, caused mental distress.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff Y, the plaintiff Y, the plaintiff Z and the network AZ for consolation money for their damages caused by the above tort.

On the other hand, the plaintiff D, AA, AB, and AC inherited the damage claim (defensive data claim) against the defendant of the net AZ.

B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is valid.