1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part shall be asserted.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A and F, who were convicted of the Plaintiff A and F, committed a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975, hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) on the grounds that they instigated the amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea around 1978 (hereinafter “instant charges”).

The Seoul High Court found the defendant guilty on May 21, 1979, sentenced the plaintiff A to 1 year of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, and 1 year and 6 months of suspension of qualifications.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Review"). This decision was finalized on May 23, 1979.

B. The Plaintiff A and F filed a petition for new trial with the Seoul High Court 201Reno.25 regarding the judgment subject to new trial.

On August 29, 2013, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment of not guilty by applying the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the Emergency Decree No. 9, which is the applicable law, was null and void since it was unconstitutional.

This ruling became final and conclusive on September 6, 2013.

C. On December 11, 2013, the Seoul High Court (2013coco122) decided to compensate 275,000 won of the number of detention days (275,000 won of the date of execution of the warrant on October 6, 1978) from October 16, 1978 to July 17, 1979 (the plaintiff A and F were arrested on October 6, 1978, and the number of detention days was 285 days. However, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the date of arrest, the Seoul High Court found that the number of detention days was 275,00 won (275 days x 194,400 won) as criminal compensation under the judgment subject to a retrial, the litigation costs for the case subject to a retrial, and the litigation costs for retrial.

This decision was finalized on December 21, 2013, and around that time, the defendant paid all of them to the plaintiff A and F.

The relationship between the plaintiffs J and the plaintiff B.