1. The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff J and K concerning the deceased BW's share of consolation money, the plaintiff L, M, and N.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether BB constitutes a victim of the civilian sacrifice case in the Nutrition area, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that BB was killed due to the unlawful performance of duties by the public officials belonging to the Defendant, based on the evidence presented by the Plaintiff AG, AH, AI, AJ, and K, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Committee on the Settlement of History for the Truth of the Truth was deemed to have insufficient evidence to recognize B as a victim of the civilian sacrifice case in the Nutrition area; and (b) the body was not recovered without any witness of the death of B; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff AG, AH, AI, AJ, and K.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to whether the BE constitutes a victim of the Nutrition National Report Federation case, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff AR, AS, AT, AT, AU, and AV alone cannot be recognized as having been killed due to the unlawful execution of duties by the public officials belonging to the Defendant, in light of the following circumstances: (a) although the Mediation Committee rendered a decision to confirm BE as a victim of the ASEAN National Report Federation case, it is difficult to ascertain the reason for the death of BE solely with the statement of the witness, DK, and Plaintiff AV, who was sacrificed in the above case; and (b) the body of BE is not recovered.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, based on adopted evidence, as to whether the AW et al. constitutes a victim.