1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months (Seoul District Court 2015Da8038), and appealed and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months on September 23, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2016No2505), but the appeal was dismissed, and the above sentence became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016.

B. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was detained in the Busan detention center, and was transferred to the Jinju prison on October 6, 2016, and was transferred to the Tong Young detention center on February 13, 2017, and was released on May 2, 2017.

C. At the time of the first confinement on June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was confined in the second room of the Busan Detention House, which is a mixed ward. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was assigned to the solitary Confinement House B, which is a single ward, and thereafter was living in the solitary Wards and the solitary Detention House.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was a class 1 disabled person with the second half-class paralysis, and was at issue in the process of marriage and treatment.

The defendant, despite being aware of such circumstances, accepted the plaintiff in the mixed ward at the time of confinement of the Busan detention house, and let the plaintiff process the side while other people observe it.

Even after the Defendant admitted the Plaintiff to a ward, the Defendant did not install facilities such as a dives, safety booms, etc. available for the disabled.

Although other prisoners at the time of confinement in the Busan detention center and the Jinju prison were in a state that they could see the process of the plaintiff's cryption, the correctional officers did not take necessary measures.

Since the plaintiff's personality right was infringed due to the illegal act by the correctional officers belonging to the defendant, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by mental suffering pursuant to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.

3. Determination

A. As to the act of confinement of a mixed ward, it is illegal to expropriate the plaintiff in the mixed ward at the time of confinement of the Busan detention house.