beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 136,581,107 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 61,538,461 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from March 3, 2015 to each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 12, 1977, investigators who belong to the Defendant were not given an opportunity to defend themselves without notifying the summary of the crime without the Plaintiff’s warrant, the grounds for arrest, and the right to appoint a defense counsel on April 12, 197, and the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”).
(ii) On the 14th day of the same month and the 14th day of the same month, the court’s warrant was issued to the Plaintiff A. 2) The investigator forced the Plaintiff to make a confession while making intimidation and verbal abuse while investigating the situation in which the Plaintiff was detained.
B. The judgment of conviction and enforcement of a sentence 1) Plaintiff A was indicted on the charge of violating Emergency Decree No. 9 by Youngbu branching 77 high-scale109 of the Seoul District Court. The summary of the judgment is as follows: “The Plaintiff A and D, and E, who was enrolled in the D University’s Human University, were recruited to punish students’ demonstration, and produced 40 copies of the Democratic Gu Charter from April 8, 197 to October 10 of the same month, respectively, to abolish the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and publicly slander the Emergency Decree No. 9, and attempted to conduct an internal demonstration on April 12, 1977, and was arrested in D, only Plaintiff A and E claimed for the abolition of the new Constitution by spreading printed things as planned, and publicly slander Plaintiff A and E for the suspension of qualifications for the aforementioned Emergency Decree No. 971, Dec. 13, 197.
The Seoul High Court, the appellate court, judged on February 23, 1978 that the above sentence is too heavy and sentenced to two years imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the plaintiff A.
(hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Review") The above decision was dismissed and finalized by Supreme Court Decision 78Do746 Decided May 9, 1978.
3 The plaintiff A.