1.The judgment of the first instance, including the proceedings taken in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Defendant (1) The Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff A” of the judgment of the first instance is used as “Plaintiff A of the first instance court; and (b) the part of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except in the following two cases; (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Re-written judgments of the first instance court shall be followed from the fifth to nineth of the fifth court rulings of the first instance as follows:

C. The Plaintiff B’s family member and the Plaintiff’s family member of the first instance court, focusing on the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and the Plaintiff C and D are married, and the network K (Death on November 20, 2006), the Plaintiff E is his parents, the Plaintiff F, G, H and L, and M are siblings.

After the judgment of the first instance court, Plaintiff A died on November 29, 2014, and Plaintiff B, C, and D inherited Plaintiff A in the first instance court.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 3-6, Gap evidence No. 25-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 26-28, and one to three of the evidences No. 25-1 through No. 28, the inquiry results on the Minister of Justice of the first instance court, and the inquiry results on the Minister of Justice of the first instance court's judgment No. 6th 8th of the judgment of the first instance court's whole purport of the pleading, are re-written "the inquiry results on the Director of the National Archives of the first instance court

The "N" in the sixth nineth judgment of the first instance court shall be used again as "A".

The last reduction from the 12th sentence of the first instance court to the 18th sentence shall be followed by the following:

In the first instance court, the plaintiff A contributed to the AC MBC and KBS television, which had been confined in the detention center, and made a reply to the reporter's behavior against his/her own act. Although the above reporter's opinion does not seem to have been made by the direct pressure of an investigative agency, it is not deemed that the reporter's opinion was made by his/her own genuine will in the state of mental pressure due to the illegal confinement and suspicion of the immediately preceding crime, and therefore, the plaintiff A of the first instance court was suspended from execution.