1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant of the claim shall make the plaintiff 125,088.

1. The reasons why the court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except that "Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, 14, and 18 of the judgment of the first instance" with "Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 12, 12 of the evidence No. 1, 14 (Evidence No. 25), 18 through 21 of the evidence No. 14, 18, 24 of the judgment of the first instance, and evidence No. 24 of the same part are stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act."

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

가. B선거관리위원회 및 그 소속 직원들은 관련사건을 조사하는 과정에서 허위신고자 F과 F의 친구로서 이 사건 저녁식사 모임에 참석하였던 K, 원고를 배신한 원고의 선거사무장 G만을 조사하였을 뿐, 이 사건 저녁식사 모임에 참석하였던 다른 사람들을 조사하지 않은 채 원고를 고발하였고, 허위신고한 F에게 신고포상금을 지급하고 다시 B선거관리위원회의 선거부정감시단원으로 위촉하는 위법행위를 하였다.

In addition, the B Election Commission and its employees committed an illegal act such as filing an accusation against the Plaintiff by sealing the photographs of several heads of the shot posters which the Plaintiff could not remove.

B. The police officer in charge of Seoul I police station and the prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office also testified that the plaintiff et al. were indicted without disregarding the statement of the plaintiff et al. and trusted only F's statement, and that the plaintiff's application for the release on bail was defective after the court was detained and there was a false assertion that "the plaintiff was found to have inflicted harm on the witness, and that there is a high possibility that the witness or witness will be a return or danger to the witness."

C. On October 17, 2012, the presiding judge of the first instance court of the relevant case detained the Plaintiff in the court on the grounds that “the likelihood of destruction of evidence and danger and injury to witnesses” was the grounds for detention, and the Plaintiff did not have the said grounds for detention. The first instance court of the relevant case was the defense counsel at the time of detention of the Plaintiff.