beta
Text
1 The plaintiffs' claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiffs E were married with Plaintiff A on or around 1969 through 1970, and they were divorced on July 4, 1994, and Plaintiff B, C, and D were children of Plaintiff A.
B. On October 15, 1970, Plaintiff A was appointed as a public official on the conviction and detention of Plaintiff A and served in the F department of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs in the F department of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. “Plaintiff A” from G on January 13, 1971, and the same year.
2. 1. 70,00 won received as a teaching expense necessary to detain H;
"The court of first instance" was prosecuted for violating the Act on the Control of Administrative Affairs (former Offense: Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act) as to the facts charged and sentenced to a judgment of 8 months of imprisonment and 170,000 won in the first instance on December 7, 1971 (hereinafter "Seoul Criminal Court Decision 71 High Court Decision 17426, hereinafter "the first instance judgment"). A appealed against the judgment of the first instance court and appealed. On February 24, 1972, the appellate court reversed the judgment of first instance and sentenced to a judgment of 2 years of suspended execution and 170,000 won in the 8 months of imprisonment (hereinafter "Seoul Criminal Court Decision 71No4927, hereinafter "the second instance judgment").
(3) The Plaintiff was detained on October 7, 1971 in relation to the facts charged in the judgment subject to a retrial, and was released on February 24, 1972.
C. Plaintiff A’s complaint against Plaintiff A and its result 1) Plaintiff A filed a false complaint against him/her and was punished by G on the ground that G was punished by false accusation, around 1996. In the foregoing intangible case, G was back to 170,000 won, “A was introduced by the Plaintiff at the time of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and was returned to I. At that time, Plaintiff A was considered to have been transferred to her house, but the Prosecutor was in charge of committing the crime that “A was free of G in view of G’s confession, I’s written statement, and the details of the Plaintiff’s complaint.”