1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiff A are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 1979, Plaintiff A was detained on the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order, and was investigated by an investigation agency.

B. On March 23, 1979, the Plaintiff A’s Schedule as Seoul District Criminal Court 79Gohap142

2. The facts charged in violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, as described above, were prosecuted, and the above court recognized the facts charged on June 14, 1979 and sentenced the plaintiff A to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and suspension of qualifications for a year and six months.

Accordingly, the plaintiff A appealed on June 15, 1979, but the same year.

7. 31. Withdrawal of appeal, which became final and conclusive on August 13, 1979.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

Plaintiff

A was released by the suspension of execution of sentence on the same day, after serving until August 15, 1979 according to the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

Plaintiff

A filed a petition for a new trial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial with Seoul Central District Court 2013 Inventory 42. Since Emergency Decree 9 is unconstitutional and invalid, the instant judgment subject to a new trial was rendered on the ground that there was a ground for a new retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which constitutes “when there is a new evidence to acknowledge innocence against the person who was pronounced a guilty.”

E. Plaintiffs E, F, and G are siblings of Plaintiffs A, and Plaintiffs B, C, and D are their spouses and consciousnesss.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. As long as an emergency measure was issued for the invalidation of a year due to significant and apparent unconstitutionality, and thus, the Plaintiff A was detained and subject to criminal punishment, the State is liable to compensate for the tort even if the intentional negligence of individual public officials was not opened.

If we do not do so, the state is a norm under the logic of the formal rule of law.