1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 as well as to the plaintiff on October 2013.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that B et al. (hereinafter “Lambling-related persons”) filed a request with an investigative agency to keep confidential the identity of the informant while informing him of the establishment of an illegal gambling place and gambling (hereinafter “instant gambling case”).

However, an investigative agency copied the identity card containing the Plaintiff’s real name and resident registration number, accompanying it without any measure in the investigation report, and bound it on the investigation records. Videos provided by the Plaintiff were openly broadcasted regardless of the investigation. The prosecutor submitted it as evidence in the criminal case of gambling-related persons so that the Plaintiff’s identity can be perused and perused without any restriction. Through this, the informant was able to know that he was the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering, such as threatening retaliation from gambling-related persons, so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the negligence of public officials in the performance of their duties.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In the relevant legal doctrine’s liability for State compensation, public officials’ harmful act should be in violation of the statute, and the statute was violated.

It means that not only a violation of a strict meaning, but also human rights respect, prohibition of abuse of power, and trust and good faith, but also a violation of a code or norm that must be observed by a public official is widely justified. Thus, if a police officer violates the limits of the law or sound reasoning that should be observed as a police officer in criminal investigation, it constitutes a violation of a statute.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da64365 Decided June 12, 2008 and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da200438 Decided May 9, 2013, etc.) B.

The defendant's liability for damages.