beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 221,626,00 for Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 500,000,000 for Plaintiff C and D; and (c) KRW 50,000 for Plaintiff C and D, respectively; and (b) Plaintiff E, F, etc.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 3, 1976, Plaintiff A was prosecuted as a crime of violating the National Security Act, a crime of violating the anti-public law, or a crime of espionage, and a crime of espionage, on the following grounds: (a) 13 of the facts charged was committed on the part of the investigators belonging to the Central Information Division of the Defendant’s Central Information Department; (b) 10 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification and 10 years of 10 years of 10 of 10 of 10 of 10 of 1976, on the part of the fact that “the du-type J, a du-type meeting with the knowledge that he was subject to the
(4) The judgment of the Seoul High Court No. 478No145 (hereinafter referred to as the following table 4 Seoul High Court) convicted all of the facts charged on October 1, 197 on the following grounds: (a) imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years; (b) suspension of qualifications for 15 years, Seoul High Court 77No115 on October 06, 197; (c) suspension of qualifications for 10 years; and (d) suspension of qualifications for 77No3571 on October 197, Supreme Court 78No1455 on October 10, 1978; and (e) imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years; and (e) suspension of qualifications for 10 years, with prison labor for 10 years, for 78No1455 on May 17, 1978; and (e) dismissal of the appeal to the Supreme Court on August 28, 1978).
Plaintiff
A filed for a new trial with the Seoul High Court 201Jano155 regarding the instant judgment subject to a new trial.
On September 6, 2013, the lower court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and rendered a judgment of innocence against Plaintiff A on August 28, 2014, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s statement and statement in the investigative agency were made in the state of illegal arrest, long-term illegal confinement, assault or intimidation by investigators, and mental pressure based on advisers, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the voluntariness of the entire facts charged was not proven, and rendered a judgment of innocence against Plaintiff A.
Therefore, the Prosecutor appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11948, but the Prosecutor appealed on November 13, 2014.