[1] The case holding that the National Intelligence Service employee's photographing in meeting a suspect without his/her consent constitutes an infringement on the right of interview and communication

[2] Whether an attorney who intends to become a defense counsel shall display his/her intent as a document to the National Intelligence Service as a defense counsel (negative)

[1] The case holding that the National Intelligence Service employee's photographing in meeting a suspect without his/her consent constitutes an infringement on the right of interview and communication

[2] In expressing the intent to become a defense counsel to the National Intelligence Service, an attorney-at-law who wishes to become a defense counsel should use a method appropriate for the National Intelligence Service to recognize his/her intention, and there is no need to display his/her intention as a document.

[1] Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and 5 others (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee Sang-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm Han, Attorney Choi Woo-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2001Na66139 delivered on September 4, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the infringement of meeting on August 24, 200

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment of the court of first instance by accepting the judgment, and accordingly, the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental damage caused by the illegal acts of the public official belonging to the court below. The reason why the National Intelligence Service employee taken photographs for the purpose of using evidentiary materials to prepare for such a case where the National Intelligence Service employee claims that he was refused to meet in the future. Thus, it is just to reject the defense that the defendant's prior consent or ex post facto approval was obtained by the plaintiff 1 because he did not have any dissenting opinion or objection when he notified prior to the meeting, or because he did not have any prior consent or objection, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. As to the infringement of meeting on September 1, 200

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, and found the above plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as " plaintiffs 2, etc.") as attorneys-at-law who intend to be attorneys-at-law of the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff 2, etc."), and held that the plaintiff 2, etc. has the right to have an interview with the plaintiff 2, etc. who is an attorney-at-law who is an attorney-at-law. A public official in charge of the National Intelligence Service takes measures to refuse an interview with the plaintiff 2, 2, 34, the right to interview and communication of the plaintiff 2, etc. guaranteed under the main sentence of Article 12 (4) of the Constitution and the right to interview and communication of the plaintiff 2, etc. which are guaranteed by Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In the process, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the above plaintiffs's suffered mental suffering or mental harm.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)