1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 1,020,40 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from June 25, 2013 to November 26, 2015.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the pertinent part, except where “Defendant B and C” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed to be “B and C,” and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to the above facts of recognition, B and C, a police officer belonging to the defendant, attempted to force the plaintiff in the form of voluntary behavior, and even if the requirements for arrest of the plaintiff in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under the Criminal Procedure Act were not met, it can be recognized that the plaintiff is arrested as an offender in the crime of obstruction of official duties. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the plaintiff due to the illegal arrest by police officers, namely, illegal performance of official duties, pursuant to the main sentence of

B. The plaintiff also asserts that the plaintiff B and C sent the plaintiff to the prosecutor's office with the opinion of prosecution. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by this.

The judgment of innocence in a criminal trial means that there is no proof that the judge has a conviction to the extent that it excludes a reasonable doubt on the facts charged, and it does not mean that the absence of the facts charged has been proven, but the judicial police officer or the public prosecutor, as an investigation agency, may investigate the suspected case, clarify the truth, and comprehensively consider the evidence collected and investigated, transfer the case to the public prosecutor's office or institute a public prosecution to the court according to the prescribed procedure, so the judicial police officer or the public prosecutor may objectively view the facts charged, and if there is considerable reason to believe that there is a possibility that the suspect might be convicted, the subsequent trial process shall be conducted.