1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs and incidental appeals by plaintiffs BJ are dismissed.

2. Plaintiff BJ and Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as to the claim that the defendant used in the court of first instance, repeated or new in the court of first instance (However, since the part concerning joint plaintiffs of the court of first instance became final and conclusive as it is, the part corresponding to the above S is excluded) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is.

[Supplementary part] The 10th of the 13th of the 10th of the 13th of the 1974 judgment "from February 3, 1974" was written.

It shall be done by changing the arrangement of the "mark" and the "paragraph (b)" of the 12 upper order of the first instance judgment.

Probation of the 20th and 24th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to the "Security Surveillance".

2. Additional determination

A. As to the claim regarding “extinctive prescription,” the gist of Defendant’s assertion is as follows: (a) the fact-finding decision of the past reorganization committee on ID related to the case of the Ulleungdo Spung-do espionage was the main evidence of the decision for commencing a new trial and the decision for commencing a new trial (hereinafter “the decision for commencing a new trial”) and the decision for commencing a new trial; and (b) the fact that “the victims of the instant case were illegally detained and detained until the detention warrant was issued and executed after the completion of the warrant without the warrant by the central information department investigators” was confirmed through the decision for commencing a new trial; and (c) in terms of prompt remedy for infringement of rights, it would be desirable to deem that the Plaintiffs cannot file a claim for damages until the judgment for not guilty became final and conclusive by the judgment for commencing a new trial of this case. In light of the above, the Plaintiffs might have an unexpected outcome on June 14, 2012 (Seoul High Court Decision 2010No83, Oct. 22, 2013).