1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:

On August 8, 1980, the Defendant’s husband B was led to the Daegu East-gu Police Station, and was led to the 36th Cheongbu Educational Team for the Army under the Plaintiff’s control. On the first day of admission to the Sambu Educational Team, the first day of the entrance into the Sambu Educational Team, but the Defendant appeared to be white during the course of life, and was killed on May 27, 1993.

The bereaved family members of the network B are the defendant, children C, E, and D who are the spouse.

B. When the Act on the Restoration of Honor of and Compensation for the Victims of Tang Educational Education (hereinafter “Tang Educational Victims Act”) was enacted on January 29, 2004 by Act No. 7121, and came into force on July 30, 2004, the Defendant filed an application for compensation on the ground that the Defendant sustained an injury due to the hang Educational Victim’s Restoration and Compensation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Compensation Deliberation Committee”)’s restoration as the representative of bereaved families on September 2004, on the ground that the Defendant suffered an injury due to the hang Educational Victim’s Honor Restoration and Compensation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Compensation Deliberation Committee”).

C. On June 8, 2005, the Compensation Deliberation Committee recognized the net B as the victim of the Sambu Education Victim’s Training under Article 2 subparag. 2(c) of the Sambu Education Victim’s Act, but recognized only the injury caused by Sambu education among the above applications, and decided to pay the compensation amount of KRW 9,701,370.

On June 15, 2005, the Defendant filed an application for reexamination. On December 14, 2005, the Compensation Deliberation Committee recognized the difference between the mental disorder and the chronic disease of the network B on December 14, 2005, and decided to pay the Defendant, C, D, and E [the Defendant: KRW 26,169,020 [the Defendant: KRW 8,723,00 (26,169,020 x 3/9,000 x 3/9,000 x less than 3/9,000 : 26,169,020 x 2/9,000 x less than 26,09,020)] (hereinafter “instant decision”).

E. The Defendant asserted that the subject of the instant decision and the criteria for calculating the compensation were wrong and against the Plaintiff.