1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The Reorganization Committee” in the Part 3 9 through 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall add “1.19” to “as of January 19, 2010”; “as of July 15, 2013” to “as of December 23, 2014,” and “as of December 23, 2014” to “as of December 15, 2014,” the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the

2. Additional determination

A. Article 5(2) of the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act provides that the court shall consider the type and length of the period of detention, the loss of property and mental suffering and physical damage that could have been incurred during the period of detention, and the existence of intention or negligence by each agency of the police prosecutor's office in order to recognize a separate State compensation liability. In this case, it is unreasonable to recognize the State's liability for damages in addition to the criminal compensation, since there was no proof of special damages beyond the amount of compensation in this case, it is unreasonable to recognize the State's liability for damages in addition to the criminal compensation. (2) It is possible to claim damages against the State as a result of multiple lawsuits over the so-called North Korean counterespionage espionage manipulation cases similar to the claim for the extinction of the right to claim damages by the lapse of the statute of limitations, since it has been widely known to the victims as the creditor of this case, the de facto disability in exercising the right to claim damages in this case has already been widely known.