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 the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1974, while attending D University economics or Giology, the Plaintiffs participated in a student movement for the demonstration of anti-readers around the end of March 1974.

B. The Plaintiff A was arrested on charges of violating the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 1 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 1”) and Presidential Emergency Measure No. 4 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 4”), and detained on April 18, 1974, and released on August 8, 1974.

C. The plaintiff B was arrested on the charge of violating Emergency Decree No. 4, and was detained on May 10, 1974, and was released on August 8, 1974, on the ground that he had attempted to escape from E by the president of the college of D University, who was a student of D University, who was a student of D University at the time.

Plaintiff

C was detained on April 2, 1974 without a warrant on charges of violation of emergency measures. On April 2, 1974, C was released on April 22, 1974.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the result of the personal examination of the plaintiffs of the first instance, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the liability for damages has arisen;

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) Emergency Decree Nos. 1 and 4 are unconstitutional and invalid, and accordingly, the F President’s issuance of Emergency Decree Nos. 1 and 4 as well as the arrest and detention of the plaintiffs by public officials belonging to the defendant without a warrant constitutes a tort. 2) The following illegal acts by public officials belonging to the defendant were committed by the public officials belonging to the defendant, as well as by the process of investigating the plaintiffs under detention without a warrant, and even after the release. This also constitutes a tort. The plaintiffs were arrested and detained by public officials belonging to the defendant during the process of receiving the investigation, and were subject to harsh acts such as assault, adviser, etc., and infringement of procedural basic rights such as restriction on meeting with the defense counsel and their family members, and are irregular within the accommodation