1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Although the unconstitutionality of the presidential emergency measures (hereinafter “emergency measures subparag. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order is very significant and apparent, the PP president issued Emergency Measures No. 9 at the time, and under the overall organizational control of the public officials, such as the Minister, etc., arrested and detained the public officials under his/her jurisdiction without a warrant on the ground of Emergency Measures No. 9, and arrested and detained the Plaintiff on the ground of the overall organizational aspect of the State, and engaged in harsh conduct such as the former adviser’s intimidation, etc., and forced to make an unvoluntary confession, and infringe on the right to receive counsel’s assistance, the PP president tried to proceed to the confirmation and enforcement of conviction judgment.

This should be viewed as constituting a tort at the systematic level of the whole country, regardless of whether an individual public official who participated in the application and enforcement process of Emergency Measure No. 9 against the Plaintiff A was intentional or negligent.

B. In addition, the P President at the time constitutes a public official under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act as a public official under the State Compensation Act, and the issuance of Emergency Decree No. 9 constitutes a presidential act under Article 53 (1) of the 19th Constitution, and the act of exercising Emergency Decree No. 9, which is invalid as unconstitutional, constitutes a tort, as a "act contrary to

Since the illegality of the emergency measure No. 9 is completed by investigation and trial, the illegality of the presidential emergency measure No. 9 and the illegality of the investigation agency and the court's act of duty should be identified as a whole, so the emergency measure No. 9 should be judged as unconstitutional, the Criminal Procedure Act is not guilty on the ground that it is unconstitutional.