All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, plaintiffs AF, CI, CJ, CK, CK, CL, CM, CN (GE), CO, G, G, Q Q, CR, CTR, CTS, CU, CU, CV.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs AF and 20 others, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize that Plaintiff AF made the statement of Plaintiff R and other evidence presented during the pleading have made a sacrifice to the civilian sacrifice of the deceased, on the following grounds: (a) there was no special reason to report that Plaintiff AF died on June 20, 1968, after 18 years from July 1950, when Plaintiff AF reported the death of the deceased on December 12, 1994; and (b) there was no special reason to report that Plaintiff AF died on June 20, 1968, which was later than the date of death of the said Plaintiffs’ assertion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant was liable to compensate the above victims and their bereaved family members for damages incurred by murdering the victims of this case (excluding the deceased AH) without due process, by military personnel, police officers, etc., who are public officials belonging to the Defendant, without due process.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the State’s application for ascertaining the truth by the victim subject to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Act”), is below the Criminal Procedure Commission for Truth and Reconciliation under the State.