1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 13, 1978, while attending the third year of the International University Law School, Plaintiff A participated in the demonstration and produced a printed article that criticizes the government at the time. Accordingly, the investigators affiliated with Defendant A committed the Plaintiff and detained Plaintiff A to the Mak Police Station.

B. On September 19, 1978, Plaintiff A issued a detention warrant in violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order. On October 16, 1978, Plaintiff A was indicted for violating Emergency Decree No. 9 on the grounds that the Emergency Decree No. 9 was issued.

The summary of the facts charged is as shown in attached Table 2.

C. On February 24, 1979, the above court found all of the charges guilty, and sentenced the plaintiff A to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.

On June 21, 1979, the Seoul High Court, the appellate court, judged on June 21, 1979 that the above sentence is too heavy, reversed and sentenced to suspension of qualifications for two years.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). On June 21, 1979, the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on the waiver of the appeal by the Plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

A shall be reinstated according to the sentence declared by the court.

July 17, 1979 was released by suspension of execution. D.

Plaintiff

A on November 19, 2013, the Seoul High Court 2013No127 filed a petition for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial.

On March 27, 2014, the above court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9 was unconstitutional or invalid from the beginning, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

On June 19, 2014, the above court rendered a not-guilty verdict pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9 applied to the Plaintiff A constituted cases where the Defendant’s case is not a crime since it was unconstitutional or invalid from the beginning. The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 27, 2014.

E. A family member of Plaintiff J, mother B, sibling C, D, E, F, and G around the time of detention as above.