Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Lee Young-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

November 25, 2003

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na103871 delivered on January 31, 2002

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked:

The defendant shall pay 5 million won to the plaintiff 1 and 2, 200 won, 2 million won to the plaintiff 3, and 5% per annum from January 9, 200 to February 17, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are ten minutes for both the first and second instances, and their nine costs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 4 million won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3 4 million won with 25% interest per annum.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7-1, 13 through 17, 19, 24, 25, 28, 30 through 34, 46, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, 3-2, 4-2, 7-2, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 11-1, 11-2, 19-2, 19-20, Eul evidence Nos. 20-17, 20-1, 20-3, 20-1, 3-2, 20-1, 20-1, 3-2, 20-1, 3-2, 20-1, 3-2, 3-1, 21-2, 21-2, 23-2, 24-2, 21-2, 24-2, 24-2, 3-1.

(a) Death of Kim decoration;

Plaintiff 1’s father, Plaintiff 2’s mother, and Plaintiff 3’s mother of Kim decoration, and Plaintiff 3 was the same student of Kim decoration, and the above Kim decoration was the second leader of the common guard unit of the United Nations Armed Forces Armed Forces, who worked in the printing area (JSA, JSA, and JSA, hereinafter “JSA”). On February 24, 1998, Plaintiff 1 was discovered as deceased by Nonparty 1 of the same affiliated disease around 12:20 on February 12:20, 1998, and was found as a result of the death (hereinafter “instant accident”). Plaintiff 3 was caused by the joint guard, leading to the left-hand public play from the right public play in the underground margin of 241GP, which led to the death (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(b) Growth, background, and military career of the Kim decoration;

(1) On February 20, 1965, Plaintiff 1, who was from the Army Academy at Army (hereinafter “Catch”) 21, was appointed from the Army as Second Lieutenant, was assigned to the Army on February 20, 1965, and was assigned to the position of the 15th rank commander, the search team commander, the planning director of the Korea-U.S. military headquarters, and the head of the first group group, etc. on November 30, 1997.

(2) Plaintiffs 1 and 2, who were students in 1973, reported the status of her father as a soldier, and determined that he will be a soldier since 190 when he was in the second grade of her provincial high school, he was in the second grade of her. On February 25, 1992, he was in the 52th grade of her death, and he was in the 192th grade of her death, and he was judged to have been strong and string his will, and the results were also excellent to the degree of 71st grade of 234.

(3) Around March 11, 1996, Kim Jong-hun completed a lifelong education course and graduated from a sergeant, and thereafter, on March 1, 1996, he was in the Army so-called at the Army. From March 18, 1996 to June 27, 1996, he completed the first class military team education at the mechanicalized school. From June 26, 1996, around June 26, 1996, he was selected as a so-called JSA’s workplace register at the JSA from 1998, and from July 1, 1996, he was assigned to the position of the 610th class 610 group of the 110 group of the 110 group of the 110 group of the 10 group of the 110 group of the 190 group of the 1st class.

(4) On November 196, 1996, the 110 volunteer group commander of the above 20 volunteer group wanting to serve as the major education officer, but Kim JSA group wanting to serve as the major education officer. However, on December 10, 1996, Kim JA group was dispatched to the 20 volunteer group leader leader leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's

(5) After completing the education in the military English team, Kim Jong-hun received education for two weeks, such as participation in the two-time training, which was issued as the common guard guard of the United Nations Headquarters on January 5, 1998. On January 20, 1998, he was appointed as the two-time commander of the guard, and was on duty in JSA until the accident occurred.

(c) Current status, such as geographical location, etc. of 241GP, composition, and working conditions of two sub-committees;

(1) The 241GP located within the above JSA is installed at the uppermost of the area southwest of the Military Demarcation Line, approximately 1.5 km from the upper door (BRF) to the northwest, approximately 5.2 km from the upper center. The inside of the facility ① is installed at the center of the central office, and there are 9, 1, and 3 observation stations in order from the north side of the facility, ② underground facilities are connected with the 16 underground route near the 241GP, which is the site of the accident in this case, and there was no 2.56m wide, 2.50m high, and 2.4m high (see, e.g. the inside of 20m high) from the outer side of the facility in question, and there was no 16 underground route near the 241GP at the time of the accident.

(2) The inner structure of the underground dust No. 3 is as follows: ① The southwest-west and northwest-west are 171cm in width, 167cm in height, 102.5cm in height, 102.5cm in width (CAL-50) with the entrance installed in the south, 30cm in width and 30cm in width (50cm in length, 30cm in height, 10cm in height) with the upper halfwest and northwest-west, 40cm in width and 30cm in width. ② The south-west-west and north-west-dong floor of 88cm in width and 85cm in size are 1 to 30cm in width, and 30cm in width in the frontwest-west and north-west, 40cm in width and 40cm in width and 30cm in width in the front wall in width, and 4 cm in width or north-west-dong, and 4 cm in width.

(3) On the other hand, the above security guards consist of four lawsuits, and one of the above common security guards' headquarters is accelerated, and each of them is carried out in the order of 5 days in the printing shop (BRF), 241GP work, QRF work, and education and training. The above two parcels were intended to move from January 21, 1998 to 241GP work, 241GP work, and 241GP work from February 20, 1998 to 24GP work in the order of 5 days from January 21, 1998, and from February 20, 1998 to February 24, 191 of the same month in which the accident of this case occurred. Since February 20, 1998, 16:00 to April 24GP work, 24GP work, and transfer them to QR work.

(4) The two sub-committees consisting of 46 members (including sub-committees) and 3 parts, excluding Kim decoration. The work in Pyeongtaek 241GP consists of 45 minutes of sub-committees at each of the 45 minutes of sub-committees at the time of sunrise and sunset, but they are engaged in search and inspection of external situation and internal boundary work in the night, night, and night GP for each sub-committee. Night boundary work is from 22:00 to 06:00 on the following day. At night boundary work, two sub-committees are divided into eight hours, from 06:0 to 14:00, from 14:00 to 22:00, from 14:00 to 14:00, from 14:00 to 22:00, respectively, two sub-committees are assigned to the situation room, and three sub-contractors were assigned to each of the remaining sub-committees at the time of shift.

D. The circumstances after the occurrence of the instant accident

(1) After finding the dead body of Kim decoration, Nonparty 1 confirmed the situation of the accident together with Nonparty 2 who met the sick Nonparty 2, confirmed the situation of the accident, and spread the accident of this case to Nonparty 3 and the two sub-members, who are the vice-chief of the above two sub-councils, a restaurant. Accordingly, Nonparty 3 immediately went to the scene of the accident, confirmed the death of Kim decoration and ordered the sub-councils to check the site access control and the GP itself, and ordered the workers of the GP situation room to report the above situation to the sub-chief of the GP situation room in accordance with the chain of command.

(2) Around 12:40, Non-party 4 of the rank of the National Security Unit: (a) received a report that he appears to have committed suicide from Non-party 3; and (b) instructed Non-party 5 driver's diseases to control the entry of soldiers into the underground markets No. 3; (c) confirmed that Non-party 6 of the rank-based captain, who arrived at the accident site, had already died; and (d) thereafter, Non-party 7, who arrived with Non-party 8 of the intelligence officer, taken on the spot pictures around 12:5 after arrival with the information officer's Captain Non-party 8; and (c) determined that Non-Party 13:0 died to the Dae-gu Headquarters; and (d) notified him of the fact.

(3) 미군 범죄수사대(CID)는 대대장으로부터 이 사건 사고사실을 통보받은 다음, 대대장에게 현장보존 및 부대출입통제를 요청하면서, 그 소속 중사 소외 9 등 수사관 5명을 출동시켰고, 위 수사관들은 같은 날 15:30경 이 사건 사고현장에 도착하여 출입을 통제하고 권총, 탄피 등 사인규명을 위한 증거물을 확보함과 아울러, 현장상황을 촬영하고 현장도면(이하 ‘맥레이놀즈McReynolds 도면’이라 한다)을 작성하는 등 현장수사를 시행하였는데, 그 당시 조사된 현장상황은 다음과 같다. ① 김훈은 머리 양쪽 관자놀이에 총창을 입고 동쪽 구석에서 남동쪽 벽에 등을 기댄채 양 발을 기관총 거치대 동쪽 모서리 부근에 모으고 주저앉아 있는 자세이다. ② 주요 혈흔은 기관총 거치대 동쪽부분 모래주머니 위에 1개, 북동쪽 벽 창문 높이에 2개, 남동쪽 벽 앉은 키 높이에 4개가 튀어 있다. ③ 김훈 오른발 앞 모래주머니 위에는 권총(M9 beretta 9㎜ 반자동 피스톨 총번 1140865, 이하 ‘사고 권총’이라 한다)이, 그보다 멀리 통로 북쪽에는 탄피가 떨어져 있고, 탄착점은 남서쪽 벽 5피트 6½인치(＝168.9㎝) 높이에 있으며 그 아래에는 탄두파편 4개(기관총 거치대 위에 2개, 바닥 모래주머니 위에 2개)가 떨어져 있다. ④ 기관총 거치대 위에는 가죽장갑 1켤레가 놓여 있고, 그 위에 여러 장의 흰 종이로 구성된 수색정찰계획표(patrol package)가 몇 장 넘겨진 상태에서 위 장갑과 일부 겹쳐지도록 비스듬히 놓여 있으며, 김훈 오른쪽 예비총열박스 위에 전투모가 위치하고 있었다.

(e) Investigation results by a military investigation agency;

(1) From February 24, 1998 to November 29, 198, the first military police officer of the Army started the investigation of the instant accident jointly with the U.S. military investigation team. From March 27, 1998, the investigation headquarters formed the first military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group to investigate the instant accident until April 29, 1998 (hereinafter “the first investigation”). The prosecutor's office of the Army, which received the investigation records, re-examineed the investigation records from June 1, 1998 to November 29, 198 (hereinafter “2 investigation”), which was conducted by the 19th military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group of the second military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group of the first military police group of the second military police group of the military police group of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter "the second military police officer's office of the second military police officer's office of the second military police officer.).

(2) Among the investigation results of the joint group, the main contents of the "reasons which cannot be seen as a sacrife" are as follows. ① The accident site of this case is as follows: (i) the space is so narrow that two people can freely download at the same time; (ii) the shoulder size of the Kim hun in the space between the location presumed to have been sacred and the wall 85cm in the space between the wall and the 85cm, in reality, it is impossible to emit the gun in the remaining 30 to 40cm; and there is no space that is 20cm between the two government and the tent. ② There is no sacrife between the two government and the tent, and there was no sacrife in the position of the sacr, and there was no sacrife and sife in the sifek, no sife any sife or sife any sife any sife any sife, no siff.

(3) Among the investigation results, the main contents of “the reason for determining self-injury” are as follows: ① There is no good, but the motive for suicide is sufficient. ② The firearms and balls paid to Kim Jung used, ② the guns and balls used to the right part of the gun, and the string to the right part of the gun, and the string to the left part of the gun in a correct manner, are the typical feature of the suicide, and the two parts of the gun are left hand, and it is difficult to go vertically into the gun if they resisted to the left part. ③ The string out of the combat bus and the gun is for the operation of the gun, and the parts of the gun, such as the wall, search and inspection planning, combat bus, and nonelectric power, are arranged, and the string situation is a common phenomenon of all persons who committed suicide.

(4) 위 수사결과의 ‘종합판단’에는, “김 중위는 전방 소대장경험 부족에 따른 중대장의 잦은 질책, 변용관 상위 귀순 이후 극도로 긴장된 JSA지역의 근무여건 등 급변해진 부대환경에 적응치 못하고, 평소 내성적인 성격관계로 타 소대장 및 소대원들보다 업무면에서 뒤지는 무력감과 소외감을 해소하지 못한 채 고민해오다가, 사고 다음날로 예정된 업무보고에 심리적 압박감을 느낀 나머지 ‘자살도 인생의 한 부분’으로 미화한 소설 「노르웨이의 숲」을 통하여 합리화된 자살을 결심하고 사고장소인 한적한 3번 지하진지로 이동하여 자신이 소지하고 있던 장갑, 수색정찰계획표, 모자 등을 가지런히 기관총 거치대 위에 올려놓은 후, 자신의 지급 권총에 실탄 1발을 장전한 뒤 좌측 손으로 권총을 감싸쥔 채 총구를 우측 관자놀이에 대고 우측 손으로 격발, 단 1발의 두부관통총창을 입은 상태로 비틀거리다가 벽에 기대어 주저앉은 자세로 사망한 것임”이라고 기재되어 있다.

2. Determination on this safety defense

In this part, the reasons why a member should explain are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as the reasons for the judgment in Paragraph 2.

3. Determination on a claim for damages due to an investigative act

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the substance of the accident of this case was not the suicide but the accident of this case was killed, but the fact was intentionally concealed and fabricated in the investigation process of the accident of this case, and that the accident of this case was dealt with as the suicide case of Kim Jong-hun, and that even if not, the investigation was not conducted to prove that the accident of this case was committed intentionally or by gross negligence, and that the accident of this case was committed a tort against the plaintiffs by failing to investigate necessary matters for the truth-finding due to intention or gross negligence, such as not making proper investigation to prove that the accident of this case was committed, and that the above fact-finding or hydropulmonary defect caused by the accident of this case, the compensation amount equivalent to the amount stated in the defendant's claim shall be claimed as compensation for mental damage.

In regard to this, the defendant did not have concealed or fabricated the truth by the military investigation agency, and the defendant asserts to the effect that the liability for damages is not established, since there was no error in investigation, since the military investigation agency has been engaged in a long period of time in order to find out the cause of the accident of this case and conducted an investigation in good faith with respect to all matters that the bereaved family members request for rescue.

B. Criteria for determining the establishment of liability

In general, an investigation is an investigation agency's activity to discover and secure a criminal and collect and preserve evidence in order to determine whether a criminal has been suspected of having been prosecuted or not. An investigation agency exclusively delegated with the authority to collect and preserve evidence, which serves as the basis for the State's exercise of the authority to impose public punishment, must make a reasonable judgment in line with the constitutional spirit guaranteeing the right to equality, the right to make a statement in the trial proceedings of the criminal victim, the right to rescue the victims of the crime, and the right to pursue a fair and fair exercise of rights. Therefore, in the case in question, an investigation agency should faithfully determine whether a criminal is suspected of having committed an offense sufficient to initiate an investigation. Furthermore, if an investigation agency initiates an investigation with the recognition of a suspicion of a crime, it shall comply with the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, collect all relevant evidence within a necessary and reasonable scope, and then reasonably determine the value of evidence, and if an investigation agency is composed of not only the suspect or the defendant in the case in question, but also the victim and his family members, and thus, an investigation agency is established as a series of legal interests and interests of the State.

C. Whether to conceal or manipulate the truth

If the military investigation agency intentionally concealed or fabricated the truth of the accident of this case, it can immediately recognize the defendant's liability which infringes on the plaintiffs' personal legal interests, which is the family member of Kim Jon, and first, we examine the plaintiffs' claims that the investigation of the military investigation agency with respect to the accident of this case intentionally concealed or fabricated the truth.

(1) Operation of suicide motors

원고들은, 합조단 수사결과 중에서 김훈이 상관으로부터 업무능력 부족이라는 지적을 자주 받자 이에 부담감과 무력감을 느끼던 중 자살을 미화한 소설 ‘노르웨이의 숲’을 읽고 합리화된 자살을 결심하였다고 발표한 부분과 이 사건 사고 당일 6:10경 소대장실 앞 난간에서 눈물을 글썽이며 하늘을 쳐다보고 있는 모습이 일병 소외 11에 의하여 목격되었다는 부분, 그리고 김훈의 JSA 소대장 선발과정에 있어서 인사부조리가 있었다는 부분 및 김훈이 부모의 뜻에 따라 육사에 입교하는 등 과보호 속에서 성장하였고, 동기생이나 JSA 전입 배경을 알고 있는 동료장교들로부터 소외감을 느꼈으며, 영어실력 등이 소외 12에 비하여 부족하여 열등감을 느꼈다는 부분은 사실과 다르게 진상을 조작한 것이라고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제7호증의 56, 을 제20호증의 88, 을 제21호증의 7, 을 제23호증의 28, 을 제24호증의 29, 을 제26호증의 16의 각 기재에 의하면, 육사 동기생 소외 13에게 비친 김훈은 재학시절 다소 내성적이나 쾌활한 성격으로 매사 적극적이고 열성적인 생활태도를 가진 생도였고, 육사 훈육지도부에는 김훈이 적극적이고, 의지가 강하며, 체력이 우수하다는 긍정적인 평가가 포함되어 있었으며, 20사단에서 근무할 당시 함께 근무하던 대대장, 소대원들에게 김훈은 당시 열성적 근무자세로 책임감이 강하고 매사에 솔선수범하여 소대원들로부터 존경을 받았던 것으로 기억되고 있는 것으로 1, 2차수사에서 밝혀진 사실을 인정할 수 있으나(갑 제9호증의 1 내지 9는 다른 육사 동기생들의 김훈에 대한 평가인데, 이를 전부 믿기는 어렵다), 한편, 갑 제7호증의 86, 을 제1호증, 을 제5호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제14호증, 을 제19호증의 5, 6, 54, 을 제20호증의 4, 78, 88, 90, 을 제21호증의 22, 29, 을 제22호증의 13, 18, 을 제23호증의 3, 을 제26호증의 21 내지 29의 각 기재에 의하면, 김훈에 대한 육사 훈육지도부에는 긍정적인 평가 외에도 김훈이 다소 마음이 여리고 자아가 확고하지 못하며 감정조절 능력이 부족하다는 취지의 상반된 평가가 포함되어 있었고, 이에 합조단은 육사 훈육지도부 및 소대원들의 진술(을 제5호증의 1 내지 5 참조)에 기초하여 김훈이 평소 내성적이고 예민한 성격이었다고 평가하고, 김훈의 제20사단 평가단 근무와 관련하여 부친의 영향력으로 제20사단 사단장에 의하여 소대장 생활 약 4개월 10일만에 사단 평가단으로 비공식 파견된 후 영어공부만 하도록 특혜를 받은 사실을 근거로 소대장으로서의 경력이 부족한 상태에 있게 되었다고 파악하였으며, 김훈의 JSA 소대장 선발경위와 관련하여 미8군 한국군지원단 인사과장 등 관련자들의 진술과 당시 선발기록을 근거로 미8군 한국군지원단측이 김훈을 그 산하의 JSA 소대장으로 선발하기 위하여 선발기준을 변경하고 이미 선발되었던 육사 동기생을 탈락시킨 것을 확인한 다음 김훈이 육사 동기생들로부터 소외감을 느꼈을 것으로 판단하였고, 이러한 김훈의 성격, 군경력, 업무능력과 근무상황 등을 근거로 하여 김훈이 상관으로부터 소대장으로서의 업무능력부족이라는 지적을 자주 받자 이에 부담감과 무력감을 느끼던 중 자살하게 되었다고 발표한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 합조단은 관련자들의 진술, 훈육지도부 등 객관적인 자료를 토대로 자살동기를 파악하면서 사고 당시 부대원들의 진술에 더 무게를 두고 김훈의 심적 상태 등을 추단하여 그 결과를 발표하였다고 볼 것이고, 합조단이 판단의 근거로 삼은 위 자료들이 조작되었다는 점을 인정할 만한 증거가 없는 이상(갑 제14호증의 7의 기재만으로 인사특혜에 대한 진술서나 진술조서가 조작되었다고 보기는 어렵고, 합조단이 판단의 자료로 삼은 증거들과 상반된 내용을 담고 있는 갑 제14호증의 7은 2002. 7. 31. 작성된 진술서로서 합조단이 수사결과를 발표할 당시에는 현출되지 않았던 증거이다) 이를 두고 자살동기를 조작하였다고 할 수는 없다(합조단 수사결과 중 김훈이 부모의 뜻에 따라 육사에 입교하는 등 과보호 속에서 성장하였다거나 소외감을 느꼈다는 부분과 위화감이 조성된 바 있다거나 열등감을 느꼈다는 부분은 관계인들의 진술 등에 기초한 가치판단이 내재된 평가로서 자살의 동기를 추단하는 과정 중에 인용한 것에 불과할 뿐이므로 이를 조작이라고까지 하기는 어렵다. 또, 소외 12는 김훈보다 육사 수료 성적에 있어서는 훨씬 앞서는 성적을 거둔 바 있다 ; 을 제21호증의 10, 11 참조).

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 21-17, at the time of the first investigation, non-party 14, at the time of the first investigation, read the so-called "Norwegian Forest" of Japan at a long time before the accident of this case occurred in the military investigation agency, but it was stated to the effect that the Kim Ho-hun read this book before his own tugboat, and that the entire novel was friendly with human beings. The non-party 2 expressed that the Kim Ho-hun recommended works of the above day, and that it was somewhat unreasonable to see the "Norwegian Forest" of the above Kim Jong-hun, based on the above statements, and that it was somewhat false to see the above "Norwegian Forest" of the above Kim Jong-hun's Dog on the day of the occurrence of the accident of this case. However, the non-party 7 was found to have published his motive to see the above "Norwegian on the date of the accident of this case."

또, 갑 제3, 4호증, 을 제5호증의 8, 을 제22호증의 18, 을 제23호증의 19의 각 기재, 제1심 법원의 현장검증결과 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 일병 소외 11이 3차수사 과정에서 이 사건 사고 당일 06:10경 막사로 내려가다가 김훈이 소대장실과 식당 사이의 철제난간에서 멍하니 하늘을 쳐다보면서 눈물을 글썽이고 있는 것을 2~3m 거리에서 목격하였다는 취지로 진술하였고, 이에 기하여 합조단은 수사결과 9. ‘자살동기 조사’의 다. ‘김중위 사망전 특이행동’ 중 (1)항 ‘소대원에게 비춰진 김중위의 모습’에서 이러한 진술내용을 그대로 기재하였으나, 소외 11은 1차수사 당시 05:50경 막사에서 김훈을 보았다고만 진술하고 눈물을 글썽였다는 언급은 하지 않았고, 2차수사 당시에는 05:30경에서 06:15경 사이에 김훈이 9번 지하진지에 들어 왔다가 아무말 없이 나갔다고 진술하였던 사실, 이 사건 사고 당일 문산 지역의 일출시간은 07:11이고 위 철제난간 부근에 별다른 외부 조명시설이 없는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 을 제5호증의 9의 기재는 믿기 어려우며, 달리 반증이 없는바, 위와 같은 소외 11의 일관성 없는 진술태도, 그리고 이 사건 사고 당일의 일출시간 및 조명상태에 비추어 소외 11의 위 진술은 신빙성이 부족하다고 할 것이나, 소외 11의 위 진술조서가 조작되었다는 점을 인정할 만한 증거가 없는 이상 그를 토대로 한 합조단의 위 수사결과 발표를 조작이라고 볼 수는 없다고 할 것이므로(일병 소외 15의 진술에 의하여 인정되는 위 목격 시점의 소대장의 행적과 소외 11의 진술이 모순된다 하더라도 같은 이유로 이를 조작이라고 할 수는 없다), 자살동기 조작에 관한 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(b) Operation of a gun gun shot, etc.

The plaintiffs asserted that, in the case of the accident of this case, there are a large amount of shots attached to the vicinity of the shooting gate and that the shots cannot be seen as the general form of the gun shots, such as where there is a trace of powders on the left hand floor instead of the shots that the shots emitted from the two shots, but the military investigation agency operated the gun shots on the shots in order to avoid this, and announced that the gun shots were launched as the shots of the gun shots on the left hand, and the gun shots on the left hand.

살피건대 갑 제2호증의 1, 2, 3, 갑 제7호증의 1, 29, 35, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44, 45, 59, 61, 62, 92, 갑 제8호증의 1, 2, 을 제1호증, 을 제21호증의 30, 을 제25호증의 4, 25, 27, 을 제26호증의 19, 34, 36, 38, 39의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 사고 후 부검을 담당한 국방부 과학수사연구소 법의학감식관 대위 소외 16은 사입구 주변에 매연의 침착이 없다는 등의 이유로 사인을 접사에 의한 두부관통총창사로 판단하였고, 1차수사시 군수사기관은 미군 범죄수사대로부터 제공받은 화약잔재감정결과 등 미군측의 증거물 감정결과(단 김훈의 좌측손에 화약반응이 있다고 감정하면서도 근접해서 총을 발사한 사람의 손에 묻은 화약반응의 존재를 스스로 발사한 결과로 생각해서는 안된다는 주의사항이 있었다) 및 위 부검결과를 기초로 김훈이 왼손으로 사고 권총을 감싸쥐고 밀착접사하여 자살한 것으로 결론을 내렸으나, 실제로는 사입구 주변에 상당량의 매연의 침착이 있었고, 다만 부검하기 전에 지워져 있는 상태였던 사실, 1차수사 후 미국 뉴욕주 법의관인 노여수는 ① 자살의 경우 총상의 기전은 통상 접사(접사, contact shot)인데 김훈의 경우 사입구 표피에 다량의 매연이 부착되어 있고 창강 내 매연축적이 불분명하므로 접사가 아닌 근접사(근접사, near contact shot)로 보아야 한다는 점, ② 권총자살자의 경우 탄도는 대체로 후상방을 향하게 되는데 김훈의 경우 탄도가 거의 수평이라는 점, ③ 김훈의 경우 오른손에서는 화약흔이 발견되지 아니하고 왼손바닥에서만 화약흔이 발견되었으므로 이는 방어흔으로 보아야 한다는 점, ④ 김훈의 두정부에 나타난 혈종은 둔기에 의한 타격의 흔적으로 보아야 한다는 점 등을 주장하며 타살의 소견을 피력하였고, 그에 따라 유족, 시민단체 등이 계속해서 진상규명을 요구한 사실, 이에 육군본부 검찰부는 서울대학교와 고려대학교 법의학교실에 두정부혈종에 대하여 감정을 의뢰한 결과 1998. 8. 31. 고려대학교 황적준 교수로부터, 1998. 9. 15. 서울대학교 이윤성 교수로부터 각 두정부혈종은 총창보다는 외부충격에 의한 것일 가능성이 높다는 취지의 회신을 받은 반면, 미군측 증거물 감정결과에 대하여 직접 감정하였던 미국방성 병리학연구소에 감정을 의뢰한 결과 1998. 10. 6. 법의관 스펜서(Jerry D. Spencer)로부터는 노여수의 견해가 근거가 없다면서 김훈은 직립상태에서 자해에 의한 총상으로 사망한 것이라는 회신을 받았으며, 국립과학수사연구소에 미군측으로부터 야전상의 등 증거물품을 반환받아 감정을 의뢰하였으나 그것만으로는 김훈 자신이 발사한 것인지 논단할 수 없다는 취지의 답변이 온 사실, 육군본부 검찰부는 위와 같은 감정결과 및 부검의 소외 16과 노여수 등에 대한 조사를 거쳐 근접사에 의한 자살이라고 2차수사결과를 발표한 사실, 그 후 합조단은 1999. 1. 15. 위 노여수, 소외 16 및 대한법의학회장 문국진, 서울대학교 법의학교수 이윤성, 고려대학교 법의학교수 황적준, 뉴욕시립대학교 법의학교수 노용면 등이 참석한 가운데 법의학토론회를 개최하였는데, 위 토론회에서 노여수를 제외한 나머지 법의학자들은 ① 김훈의 사입구가 파열상인 점 등에 비추어 총상의 기전은 접사이며 단발두부총창사로서 접사인 경우 대부분 자살이라는 점, ② 탄도는 머리의 위치와 방향에 따라 달라질 수 있는 것이고 탄환이 두부를 수직으로 관통한 경우 자살로 보아야 한다는 점, ③ 피스톨을 발사한 손에서 화약이 발견되는 비율은 통계상 27% 내지 33%에 불과하고 왼손바닥의 화약흔은 뇌관 잔재물로서 먼 거리에서 방어자세를 취한 경우에는 나타날 수 없으며 김훈의 경우 왼손바닥에 화상흔으로 보이는 흔적이 있으므로 결국 왼손으로 사고 권총을 잡고 오른손으로 발사한 것으로 보인다는 점, ④ 두부총창의 경우 두피하출혈이 자주 일어나는데 김훈의 경우 전두부에도 출혈이 있었고 두정부에는 총창으로 인한 골절선이 이어져 있으며 모상건막하 출혈일 경우 출혈부위가 넓게 퍼질 수 있다는 점 등의 이유로 위 노여수와 달리 자살소견을 각기 피력하였고, 그에 따라 합조단은 김훈이 좌측 손으로 권총을 감싸진 채 총구를 우측 관자놀이에 대고 우측 손으로 격발하였다고 수사결과를 발표한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 비록 1차수사결과 발표 당시 부검의의 소견이 잘못된 자료에 기인한 실수가 있다고 하더라도 이를 기초로 한 권총발사자세 등에 관한 1차수사결과가 조작이라고 볼 수는 없고, 합조단의 수사결과는 이 사건 사고에 있어서 발사자세나 화약흔, 두피하출혈과 관련된 법의학적 문제점들 전반에 대하여 위 법의학토론회의 다수견해를 따른 것이라 할 것이므로, 그와 같은 결론을 채택함에 있어서 의문의 여지가 없지는 않으나, 이처럼 합조단이 국내 권총사고 사례가 드문 현실에서 국내외 문헌과 학자들의 견해가 일치하지 아니한 가운데 법의학토론회를 개최하여 전문가의 다수견해에 따라 판단하고 이를 기초로 자살로 추정한 이상 적어도 이를 가리켜 발사자세 등을 조작한 것이라고 볼 수는 없다고 할 것이므로, 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다(원고들은 그밖에도, 사인이 밀착총상에 의한 것이라면 총열 밖에도 혈흔이 묻어 있어야 함에도 없는 점, 손에 혈흔이 발견되지 않는 것은 김훈에 의하여 권총이 발사된 것이 아니라는 점, 수사기관이 발표한 권총발사자세라면 탄피가 왼손에 맞을 수밖에 없다는 점 등을 들어 수사기관이 사건을 조작하였다고 주장하나, 위 법의학토론회의 다수견해는 원고들이 주장하는 점을 모두 고려하여도 김훈이 권총을 발사한 것이라고 결론내렸고, 합조단은 위 결론을 따른 것으로서 결국 이를 조작이라고 할 수는 없다).

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the third investigation team announced the results of the investigation by manipulating the fact that the results of the powder reaction test conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation by the firearms launch by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation are the death of a private person of Kim decoration, but it is not contained in the debate in the legal debate, and it is not detected despite the detection of the powder residues or the frequency thereof is low.

In light of the following facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 21-5, and 59, the prosecution headquarters at the time of the second investigation was found to have found that the results of the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation were 9. The results of the investigation conducted by the 19th son's 2nd 8th son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 5th son's son's son's son's son's son's 9th son's son's son's son's son's 5th son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 5th son's son's son's son's 1998th son's son's son's 19.

(3) Operation of the accident site

The plaintiffs were found to have been used in killing the two governments of Kim Jon at the initial accident site, but they were concealed by the investigation agency, and the investigation agency was found to have concealed them. ② The sand beer on the ground of the 3rd underground Jinsle floor, the site of the accident site, but the two government-wide species were changed to the two to the two to three parts in order to support the lack of space to e.g., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., the accident site.

(A) According to the evidence No. 1, No. 7, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 20 of No. 1, No. 7, and No. 10, No. 7, and No. 10 of No. 7, No. 9, were found to the effect that the investigation of Non-Party No. 2 was conducted on Non-Party No. 7, and Non-Party No. 1, No. 7, and Non-Party No. 1, No. 7, No. 9, and Non-Party No. 2, Non-Party No. 9, Non-Party No. 1, Non-Party No. 2, Non-Party No. 1, Non-Party No. 7, Non-Party No. 1, Non-Party No. 2, Non-Party No. 7, Non-Party No. 1, Non-Party No. 7, Non-Party No. 2, Non-Party No. 7, Non-Party No. 1, Non-Party No. 2, were found. 5.

(B) Next, according to the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 7-19, Eul evidence Nos. 25-28, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance on the floor floor of the accident site of this case, it can be acknowledged that sand gas is stored three parts except passage. Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence Nos. 7-19, Eul evidence Nos. 25-28, Eul evidence Nos. 18, Eul evidence Nos. 7-10, Eul evidence Nos. 24-28, and Eul evidence Nos. 24-28, it is hard to acknowledge credibility of the part of the plaintiff's on-site floor of this case as evidence Nos. 24-24, the above part of the body on-site 3, and the remainder of the body on-site 1, etc. of this case can not be acknowledged.

(다) 마지막으로 권총과 사체와의 거리 주장에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제7호증의 1, 2, 19, 을 제3호증의 2, 을 제4호증의 1, 을 제18호증의 87, 을 제21호증의 30, 61, 을 제23호증의 5, 을 제24호증의 28의 각 기재 및 갑 제7호증의 18, 을 제10호증, 을 제24호증의 28의 각 영상에 의하면, 맥레이놀즈 도면에는 사고 권총의 위치가 기관총 거치대 동쪽 모서리 부근으로부터 총구까지 17¾인치(＝45.085㎝), 공이치기로부터 19¼인치(＝48.895㎝) 떨어져 있는 것으로 표시되어 있으나, 도면만으로는 그 기준점이 동쪽 모서리인지 김훈의 오른발 군화 끝 부분인지가 불명확한데, 소외 9는 1998. 2. 25. 미군 범죄수사대에 현장검증결과 사고 권총이 김훈의 오른쪽 발에서 약 19인치 북쪽마루에 놓여져 있었다고 보고한 사실, 제1사단 헌병대는 미군측의 출입통제로 인하여 사고 당일 17:20경에야 사고 현장에 도착하여 10분간 약식으로 현장조사를 마쳤는데 당시 이미 권총 등 유류품이 수거되어 있어 이를 다시 현장에 위치시키고 사진을 촬영한 후 미군 수사관이 작성한 도면을 기초로 거리를 ㎝로 환산하여 도면을 작성하였으며, 그 결과 작성된 제1사단 헌병대 수사관 작성 현장세부모양도 및 인지보고서는 김훈의 오른발과 권총 사이의 거리를 50㎝로 표시하고 있는 사실, 그에 따라 1, 2차 수사결과 김훈의 오른발과 권총 사이의 거리가 50㎝라고 발표하였다가, 3차수사 당시 합조단은 맥레이놀즈 도면상 기준점을 기관총 거치대 동쪽 모서리로 보아야 함에도 이전의 수사결과가 도면을 잘못 해석한 것으로 파악하고 기관총 거치대와 총구까지의 거리가 45.085㎝인데 소외 7 촬영사진상 김훈의 오른발 전투화가 거치대 모서리에서 ⅔이상 전진되어 있으므로 그 길이 18㎝를 뺀 27.085㎝가 김훈과 권총사이의 거리라고 판단한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 제1사단 헌병대는 현장을 실측함이 없이 도면을 작성하였고, 비록 소외 7이 김훈의 오른발과 권총과의 거리를 19인치로 보고하기는 하였으나 맥레이놀즈만이 현장 상황을 실측한 것으로 보이므로 결국 가장 신빙성 있는 자료는 맥레이놀즈 도면이라 할 것인바, 위 도면의 기재형상에 의하면 권총의 위치는 위쪽으로 2방향, 아래쪽으로 2방향 등 모두 4가지 방향에서 측정되었는데 위쪽 2방향은 기관총 거치대의 북쪽 모서리를 기준으로 하였고, 아래쪽 2방향의 거리측정선이 기관총 거치대 동쪽 모서리를 향하고 있는데다 그 화살표 표시선 중 일부가 김훈의 발을 묘사한 선과 교차하고 있으며, 탄피의 위치 역시 벙커나 기관총거치대 모서리 등 고정된 지점을 기준으로 측정하였음을 알 수 있으므로, 결국 위 도면상 총구와의 거리 17¼인치(＝45.085㎝)는 김훈의 오른발이 아닌 기관총 거치대 모서리를 기준으로 한 것으로 봄이 상당하고, 나아가 앞에서 든 각 증거에 의하면 김훈의 오른발이 기관총 거치대 모서리로부터 상당부분 나아가 있음은 비교적 명백하게 인정되는 이상 합조단이 위 45.085㎝에서 전투화 길이 28㎝ 중 일부를 차감하는 방식으로 권총과 오른발 사이의 거리를 추정하는 것은 합리성 있는 판단이라 할 것이며, 따라서 이 부분 합조단 수사결과가 조작이라는 원고들의 주장 역시 이유 없다.

(4) Other arguments

(A) Although Nonparty 2 was not assigned to Nonparty 1, 8, 1, 2, 3, 9, 1, 4, 9, 1, 2, 9, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 4, 2, 9, 1, 9, 2, 9, 2, 9, 1, 9, 2, 9, 1, 4, 9, 1, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 4, 2, 9, 1, 9, 2, 1, 3, 9, 4, 1, 9, 1, 2, 1, 3, 9, 4, 1, 6, 1, 3, 9, 1, 4, 9, 1, 6, 1, 3, 1, and 4,2.

(B) The plaintiffs deleted the part that the Ministry of National Defense had been heard at the time of the accident by manipulating the situation of the Korea-U.S. Military Command as required by the National Defense Committee, and the investigation agency also announced that it was not able to listen to the totality of Non-Party 22 without disregarding the results of the U.S. Military Listening Test and the content of the situation, and without any investigation with respect to Non-Party 22, whose total gender was recorded, and that it was written out a letter to the effect that Non-Party 240GP's soldiers who had heard the total gender at the time of the accident were forced to have been forced to listen to the generality at the time of the accident, and that they operated the case.

살피건대, 갑 제7호증의 22, 25, 32, 33, 34, 갑 제26호증의 2, 3, 을 제2호증의 1, 을 제4호증의 각 기재 및 제1심 증인 소외 17의 증언에 의하면, 이 사건 사고 직후 인근 제1사단에서 공동경비대대에 연락병으로 파견되어 근무하는 일병 소외 23이 작성한 상황일지, 제1사단 상황일지 및 한미연합군사령부 보고문서 등에서 총성이 청취되었다고 기재되어 있는 사실, 위 한미연합군사령부 보고문서를 작성한 한미연합군사령부 작전참모부 지휘통제부 중령 소외 24는 1998. 4. 28. 국회 국방위원회에 동일 제목의 위 문서를 재작성하여 제출하였는데, 원본과 상이하게 총성청취와 관련된 부분을 삭제한 사실, 1차수사 당시인 1998. 4. 3. 상황실, 식당, 1번 관측소에 병력을 배치하고 3번 지하진지에서 사고 권총과 동일한 권총을 발사하여 총성을 확인하는 총성청취실험을 한미 합동으로 실시한 사실, 당시 처음 발사시에는 총구앞에 장애물을 위치시키지 않은 채, 나머지는 엷은 거즈, 압박붕대 등을 밀착시키고 발사하였는데, 당시 미군 범죄수사대의 보고문서에 의하면, 첫 발사시에는 식당 및 1번 관측소에서 총성을 청취하였으나, 나머지는 총성을 청취하지 못하였다고 보고한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편 갑 제7호증의 22, 63, 을 제2호증의 1, 3, 을 제18호증의 60, 112, 을 제19호증의 44, 45, 을 제20호증의 45, 46, 47, 92, 을 제21호증의 41, 47, 을 제22호증의 18, 을 23호증의 14, 19, 을 제26호증의 3, 12, 28, 29, 을 제31호증의 23의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 사고 직후에 소대원들은 수사기관에 사고 당시 총성을 청취하지 못하였다고 진술하였고, 다만 일병 소외 25가 수색정찰 도중 총성을 들었다고 수사기관에서 진술하였으나 이는 241GP 쪽에서 들린 것이 아니라 그 반대편인 사격장 쪽에서 단발이 아닌 연발 총성을 들었다고 하여 이 사건 사고와는 무관한 것으로 밝혀진 사실, 사고 당시 판문점 근무에 투입된 1소대장 중위 소외 26은 2소대 상황실로부터 김훈이 총에 맞아 쓰러져 있다는 보고를 받고, 대대 상황실에 실제비상발령을 알리는 암호(code word)인 Buffalo Stampede(판문점 지역에서 북괴군에 의한 비우호적인 사격)를 전파하였고, 대대 상황실에서 이를 확인한 제1사단 연락병 소외 23은 연락장교 중위 소외 27의 지휘 하에 제1사단 등에 상황보고를 하였는데, 소외 27이 보고과정 중에 총성청취라는 말을 사용하고, 소외 23이 이를 그대로 상황일지에 기재함으로써 총성청취부분이 제1사단, 한미연합군사령부 등 상급부대에 그대로 전달되었고, 그로 인하여 소외 24의 한미연합군사령부 보고문서에도 총성청취부분이 기재되게 된 사실, 소외 24는 위 보고문서를 국회에 제출하라는 요구를 받고 2장 분량의 문서를 1장으로 요약하는 과정에서 위 총성청취부분을 누락하였으나, 그 이전에 유가족인 원고 1에게 요약한 문서가 아닌 원본 문서를 제시하였던 사실, 1998. 4. 3. 실시한 총성청취시험은 미군측의 장비를 이용하여 미군의 주도 하에 실시되었는데, 당시 한국군 수사관들은 총성을 청취하지 못하였고, 그에 따라 제1군단 헌병대는 1번 관측소는 바람소리, 식당은 비디오 소리 등으로 인하여 총성을 청취하지 못하였다고 1차수사결과를 발표하였으나, 2차수사를 맡은 육군본부 검찰부가 1998. 10. 27.에서야 미군이 촬영한 위 실험에 관한 비디오 및 오디오 자료를 미군측으로부터 입수하여 검토하고 당시 참여한 미군 수사관을 상대로 조사를 벌인 결과, 첫 발사시 총성이 청취되었다는 내용을 확인하고 이를 2차수사결과에 반영하였으며, 합조단 역시 1998. 12. 18. 두꺼운 거즈를 댄 채로 총성청취실험을 하였는데 상황실, 식당, 1번 관측소 등에서는 총성이 청취되지 않았고, 다만 소대장실 안에서는 좌측쪽문에서 얇은 철판이 떨어지는 소리가 약하게 들렸으며, 1998. 2. 23. 실시한 총성청취실험에서도 사고 당시 아무도 없었던 소대장실을 제외하고는 아무 곳에서도 총성을 듣지 못한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 사고 당시 가장 현장에 가장 근접하여 있었던 소대원들의 일관된 진술에 비추어, 갑 제22호증의 기재는 믿기 어렵고, 각 상황일지에 총성청취라고 기재가 이루어진 경위 및 소외 22는 한미연합군사령부 보고문서의 작성자가 아닐 뿐만 아니라 기재 경위에 비추어 그에 대한 조사는 불필요한 것으로 보이는 점, 소외 24가 허위의 새로운 문서를 작출하였다거나 기존의 문서를 폐기한 것이 아니라 기존 문서를 요약하여 국회에 제출하였고 원본은 이미 공개된 상태였다는 점, 1차수사 당시 총성청취실험에 관하여 준비 소홀 등으로 미흡한 수사결과를 발표하였다고 할 것이나, 2차수사에서 이를 바로잡았고 3차수사에서 두차례 더 총성청취실험을 한 점 등에 비추어, 총성청취에 관한 수사결과가 조작되었다고 보기는 어렵다고 할 것이므로, 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(C) In addition, in the case of 11-minutes 11, the Plaintiffs publicly announced that the search inspection was conducted at the time of the instant accident, and that their know-how was proved. However, the two parties completed all the search inspection set out in the Regulations on the Search before the date of the instant accident, unlike ordinary book, the search inspection on the date of the instant accident was not notified to the first class nearby the date of the instant accident, and the details of the report are not stated in the first class search report, and in the first class search report on the date of the operation of the first class search team and the first class information summary report on the first class, one of the search team units or the first class search report on the date of the search report must be located and controlled at the situation room of the first class search and inspection, and in the case of the search report on the first class search and inspection, only one of the team units or the vice group commander did not have actually participated in the search and inspection on the date of the instant accident. In light of the regulations on the search and inspection, the first class search report on the first class search and inspection was asserted.

It is insufficient to conclude that the testimony of Nonparty 17 and Nonparty 28 as above did not undergo the above search and inspection. Rather, the testimony of Nonparty 15, 71, 72, 73, 13-1 through 9, 16-1, 20-20, 20-21-21, 60, 22-18, 23-23-19, 25-21, 25-21, 29-4, 29-4, and 5-2 of the plaintiffs' evidence Nos. 7-1, 71, 72, 73, 13-1, 16-1, 20-20, 19, 25-12, 29-4, 29-5, 19-12, 29-10, 19-1, 29-1, 29-2, and 5 are different.

(D) The plaintiffs asserted that the part which reversed the statements in the investigation process of the joint group held by the non-party 30 and the non-party 31 among the investigation results of the joint group, unlike the statements made by the National Assembly, was distorted by intimidation and return by investigators. However, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 15 and 16 as shown above is consistent with the above evidence Nos. 15-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 19-29 of the evidence No. 15-29, No. 20-6, 7, and 22-18 of the evidence No. 15-7, No. 15-7, and No. 15-8 (video tape) is insufficient to recognize it, and since there is no clear evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiffs' above assertion also is not accepted.

(E) Although the plaintiffs announced that the Gohap was not guilty of blood transfusion in the battle of Kim Jong-hun as a result of appraisal, according to the investigation records of the U.S. military investigation team, the Gohap argued that the investigation result of the Gohap was false, and thus, it was found that he was found that he was in the battle of Kim Jong-hun on the investigation records of the U.S. military investigation team, and that the results of the Gohap's investigation report on May 2, 1998 (Evidence No. 7-1 of the evidence No. 7), it was hard to find that it was hard to find that the Gohap was in the above investigation report on the investigation records of the first military police officer's 198 (the evidence No. 7-1 of the evidence No. 1 of the 1998, but it was also hard to find that the Gohap was in the 19th military investigation report on the 19th military's mother, and that it was hard to find that the Gohap was in the 19th military investigation report on the above evidence No.

(f) Although the plaintiffs presented that the Joint Lighting was fully organized at the scene of the accident in this case, the articles of oil, such as locks, search and inspection schedule, combat caps, and electricity without electricity, they asserted that this was concealed or fabricated.

살피건대, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제7호증의 13, 14, 16, 39, 40, 69, 78, 을 제7호증의 10 내지 12, 을 제19호증의 11, 12, 14, 19, 23, 24, 을 제20호증의 11, 12, 13, 을 제22호증의 9, 10, 11, 18, 을 제23호증의 19, 20, 30, 을 제25호증의 32, 을 제26호증의 2, 9, 11, 을 제29호증의 18의 각 기재, 갑 제4호증의 일부 영상 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 소외 7이 현장사진을 촬영한 12:55 이후 이 사건 사고 현장은 기관총 거치대 위에 가죽장갑이 있고 그 위에 수색정찰계획표가 몇 장 넘겨진 상태에서 장갑과 일부 겹쳐지도록 비스듬히 놓여져 있었으며 전투모는 예비총열박스 위에 떨어져 있는 상황이었던 사실, 이 사건 사고 직후 기관총 거치대 위에는 김훈의 무전기가 놓여 있었으나 소외 3이 상황전파용으로 사용한 후 계속 소지하고 있다가 다음날 부중대장에게 반납한 사실, 이 사건 사고 직후 이 사건 사고 현장을 목격하였던 소대원들 및 소외 3은 당시 유류품 중 전투모의 위치에 관하여 서로 상반된 진술을 하였는데, 소외 2는 1998. 2. 27. 기관총 거치대 위에서 전투모와 무전기를 보았다고 진술하였다가 1998. 3. 28. 기관총 거치대 위에서 전투모, 무전기, 그리고 장갑을 보았다고 진술하였고, 2차수사 당시에는 전투모 아래에 무전기와 장갑이 놓여져 있었으나 수색정찰계획표는 기억에 없다고 진술하였다가, 다시 3차수사에서는 전투모가 맨 위에, 그 밑에는 장갑이 가지런히 놓여져 있었고, 다시 그 밑에는 검정색 육군수첩으로 보이는 수첩이 위치하고 있었다고 진술하였으며, 소외 1은 1차수사 당시에는 전투모 위치와 관련한 진술이 없었다가 2차수사에 이르러 기관총 거치대 위에 전투모가 놓여져 있었고, 그 옆에 무전기가 있었다고 진술하였고, 합조단의 수사 당시 수사초기에는 전투모가 기관총 거치대 위에 장갑, 무전기와 같이 놓여져 있었다고 진술하였다가 1999. 1. 12.경에는 전투모와 장갑이 가지런히 기관총 거치대 끝 부분에 놓여져 있었고, 특히 전투모는 모자창 부분이 출입구 방향을 향하고 있어 지하진지를 왕래하는 사람에 의하여 건드려져 바닥으로 떨어질 수도 있는 상태였다고 진술하였으며, 일병 소외 32는 1차, 2차수사 당시까지는 사고 현장에 관하여 아무런 진술도 하지 않다가 1999. 12. 18.에 이르러서야 기관총 거치대 위에 전투모와 무전기가 가지런히 놓여져 있었다고 진술하기 시작하였으며, 소외 3은 1차, 2차수사에서는 수사초기부터 일관되게 기관총 거치대 위에 장갑, 수색정찰계획표, 그리고 무전기가 위치하여 있었고, 전투모는 김훈의 오른쪽에 있는 예비총열박스 위에 놓여져 있었다고 진술하였다가 3차수사가 개시된 후인 1998. 12. 22.에는 전투모가 뒤집힌 채로 놓여져 있었는데 바로 놓았다고 하였고, 1999. 1. 8.에는 여전히 예비총열박스 위에 전투모가 놓여져 있었다고 하면서도 소외 1과 소외 2의 진술에 비추어 자신이 기관총 거치대 위에 놓여져 있던 전투모를 떨어뜨렸을 수도 있다고 진술한 사실(그러나 소외 3은 합조단 수사결과가 발표된 이후인 1999. 4. 20.까지도 여전히 전투모는 예비총열박스 위에 있었다고 진술하였다), 합조단은 수사결과 기관총거치대 모래주머니 상단에 검정색 가죽장갑 1켤레와 수색정찰계획표가 포개어져 있고 그 위에 김훈의 전투모, 우측에 무전기가 가지런히 놓여 있었으며 소외 3이 지하진지에 들어가 김중위의 머리와 맥박을 살피는 과정에서 무의식적으로 전투모를 우측 통로에 떨어뜨렸다가 이를 뒤늦게 발견하고 예비총열박스 위에 올려놓은 것으로 확인되었다고 발표한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 위 수색정찰계획표는 몇 장이 넘겨져 당일 수색정찰지역의 지도가 펼쳐진 상태로서 가죽장갑 위에 비스듬히 겹쳐져 있는 모습이었다는 것이므로, 적어도 이를 가리켜 ‘가지런히 정리된’ 모습이라고 보기는 어렵다고 할 것이고, 시간이 지날수록 목격한 내용을 더욱 상세하게 묘사하면서 유류품의 종류에 대하여 일관성 없이 진술한 소외 2나 2차, 3차수사에 이르러서야 전투모의 위치에 관하여 진술한 소외 1, 32의 각 진술서나 진술조서는 수사초기부터 일관되게 전투모의 위치를 구체적으로 정확하게 진술하고 있는 소외 3의 진술에 비하여 그 신빙성이 떨어진다고 볼 것이나(위 갑 제4호증의 일부 영상에 의하면 당시 장갑과 수색정찰계획표는 기관총 거치대 위의 모래주머니 1개 폭 이상 안쪽에 위치하고 있어 전투모가 장갑 위에 놓여 있었다 하더라도 소외 3이 사체에 다가가는 과정에서 이를 떨어뜨릴 가능성이 적다고 할 것이다), 합조단의 위 수사결과는 위와 같은 목격자들의 진술을 토대로 사고현장의 유류품의 위치에 관하여 결론을 내리고 있는바, 증거가치의 평가가 이를 행하는 사람마다 다양하게 견해가 나뉠 수 있다는 면을 고려할 때 목격자들의 진술이 엇갈리는 가운데 어느 일방의 진술을 취신하였다는 이유만으로 이를 사건 조작이라고 보기는 어렵다 할 것이므로, 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다( 소외 2, 1, 32는 위 장갑, 수색정찰계획서 등이 가지런히 놓여져 있는 것을 목격하였다고 진술하였고, 이를 토대로 유류품의 배치 형태에 관하여 가지런히 놓여져 있었다고 결론지은 합조단 수사결과 역시 조작이라고 단정할 수 없다 ; 을 제7호증의 11, 을 제19호증의 19, 을 제31호증의 20 참조).

D. Whether there was negligence or illegality in the investigation.

As seen earlier, the military investigative agency’s investigation into the instant accident cannot be deemed to have intentionally concealed the truth or fabricated the instant case (other, the witness Nonparty 33, 17, and 18 of the first instance trial, who seems to conform to the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot be employed merely because some of the testimony of Nonparty 33, 17, and 18 of the witness of the first instance trial, who stated that he/she conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot be employed). Next, it is examined as to the existence

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are 3, 4, 7-1 to 10, 13 through 17, 24, 32, 37, 39, 47 through 5, 57, 58, 59, 61, 85, 86, 90, 92, 2-1, 2-3, 2-1, 3-2, 3-2, 4-1, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-2, 4-1, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-2, 4-2, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-2, 4-2, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-2, 3-2, 5-2, 26, 19-2, 3-1

(A) Failure to conduct a field investigation and failure to preserve the site;

1) After the instant accident occurred, the military police officer of the first instance court, who is in charge of the case investigation within JSA as a regional jurisdiction, obtained intelligence of the instant accident from Nonparty 34, 14:50, who is the chief of the U.S. military administration division, and three investigators, such as Nonparty 35, etc., who are the chief of the investigation division belonging to the said military police unit, were dispatched to the site and arrived at the said joint security unit at around 15:30, but the U.S. military police officer did not enter the wind to control the entry of the Korean military investigators on the ground that the instant accident site was an operation area directed by the U.S. military commander, and arrived at 241GP at around 16:45.

2) At the time, the U.S. military criminal investigation team, which had already arrived at the scene of the accident and had been conducting the on-site investigation by securing evidence materials and photographing the site conditions, demanded only an on-site investigation at the level of confirming the results of investigation by notifying the military police units of the first military police unit of their investigation. The first military police unit of the first military police unit as above, the investigation of the accident site of this case should be entrusted to the U.S. forces, and the investigation results will be transferred on the following day. At around 17:20, the investigation was completed at around 10 minutes after entering the underground space No. 3, the site of the accident of this case, which was located at around 17:20. At the time, evidence materials such as pistols, etc. were collected by the U.S. forces, had the scene drawings again and taken photographs, and had Kim Jong-hun's identification card, etc. other than the evidence collected by the U.S. military investigator (the evidence inspection report prepared under the Military Court Act and the Military Prosecution Prosecution Affairs Management Regulations).

3) Meanwhile, at the time of completion of the on-site investigation, Nonparty 4 asked the U.S. military criminal investigation unit of the accident site of the United States, which was scheduled as of February 26, 1998, to look at whether the accident site would be colored as a paint, and instructed the U.S. military criminal investigation unit of the accident site of the U.S., to remove blood shoots, etc. in the underground dust No. 36. From 16:00 to 241GP on the date of the accident, Nonparty 37 in the four major military unit of the accident at around 19:0 on the same day, the above instructions from the above non-party 36 to the above non-party 38 of the 4 major military unit of the accident site of the U.S., and the non-party 4, the disease non-party 39 et al. and the non-party 1 of the disease site of the accident site of the Republic of Korea, and then removed the blood shoots from the above 30th of the plaintiff, etc.

4) In addition, the first military police officer did not actively resist or control the U.S. military police officer's non-cooperative attitude and field damage. However, on February 25, 1998, the military police officer requested the U.S. military investigation team to conduct a joint investigation with the U.S. military and the U.S. forces jointly, and agreed to conduct a joint investigation between the U.S. military police officer and the U.S. forces. forces. The investigation team of the U.S. forces requested the return of evidence materials from the U.S. military police officer of the first military police officer after the investigation team of the U.S. forces conducted the investigation team to conduct a joint investigation. However, upon the request of the U.S. military police officer of the first military police officer of the first military, the military police officer of the first military police officer refused to request the return of evidence materials from the U.S. military police officer for the examination of evidence materials, such as notification of the results to the U.S. military scientific investigation institute, etc., the investigation team failed to have conducted a joint investigation team prior to obtain fingerprints.

(b) Failure to examine on-site evidentiary materials, etc.

1) However, at the time of the first military police officer’s field investigation, the first military police officer’s cover was destroyed by the 2nd cover of the string location string located between the right side of the instant accident site, No. 13 and No. 16 (15 at the time of the second investigation) and the cover was destroyed, and the number of the 3rd military police officer’s string position string is marked on the front side of the Kim decoration and the front string string (see, e.g., e., the above string position string number was not fixed in the order of serial number, and thus, the number of the string position string was not known if the 3rd cover was opened, and there was no possibility that the 2nd string location was destroyed by the 4nd string location at the time of the instant accident, and there was no possibility that the 2nd string was destroyed by the 2nd string and the 2nd string of the instant accident.

2) In addition, the serial number of the accident gun discovered at the site of the accident of this case was 1140865 (total machine management number 204) and it was originally Nonparty 19, and the serial number of the Kim Jung gun was 1140862 (total machine management number 201), but the military police unit of the first instance judgment did not closely conduct an on-site investigation of the evidence and did not go through the procedure for verifying the possession of the Kim Jung's rifle's gun possession.

3) Ultimately, around April 29, 198, the military police officer of the first-class military police group and the US military police officer's criminal investigation group stated that the cream was 2.5cm on the right hand x 1.5cm on the surface of the body, but the first-class investigation was conducted after the investigation results revealed that the cream was damaged after the accident, etc., and the investigation was conducted after the plaintiff's family members, etc. after the investigation was conducted.

(C) A formal alba investigation of the initial investigation date;

1) Meanwhile, the first military police officer from 23:00 on the date of the accident after completing a field investigation to 02:00 on the following day, he collected 35 members of the small-scale shed from the second police officer's corridor at the time of the accident to 241GP, and received a written statement about the status of Kim decoration, Kim decoration on the date of the accident, and the duty of the small-scale members at the time of the accident, and the performance of the time discrimination. Since the small-scale unit members at the time of the accident were unable to well memory the time of their behavior on the day of the accident, the investigator is not superior, and it was urged to prepare a written statement with the small-scale unit members who acted or worked together at the time of the accident, and the small-scale unit commander received an emergency report from the small-scale unit members at the time to 35 hours, and made a statement about the emergency vehicle at the time of the accident to 12:29 minutes before and after the time of the accident.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the statements of the members of the U.S. soldiers, the presumption time of death of Kim decoration is from 11:50 to 12:20. At the time of the instant accident, 11 persons such as the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 3-minutes of the 3-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 1-minutes of the 241Gs of the 241Gs of the 2-minutes of the 4ths of the 2-minutes of the 2-minutes of the 2-minutes of the 3-minutes of the 14ths of the 3-minutes of the 14ths of the 3-minutes of the 3-minutes

3) In addition, the first-class military police officer began to interrogate the persons involved in the instant accident directly from February 27, 1998. On February 27, 1998, the first-class military police officer conducted a substantive investigation by the investigator's investigation into only Nonparty 1, 2, and the second-class police officer's first witness, and the second-class police officer's investigation into the investigator's investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation. On March 6, 1998, the first-class military police officer conducted a false oral investigation into the non-party 1, 2, and 3, who did not respond to the false statement, and confirmed that there was no false response to the statement by the prosecutor's investigation into the second-class police officer's individual investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation into the second-class police officer's investigation into the second-class.

(D) Securing the two major situation, Nonparty 3’s computers, etc.

1) The security guards working in 241GP is operated to prepare a observation room and a situation room (LOG) log and to record the trends on the north side and the vehicle access status in 241GP. The situation list is written in the form of b41GP in the form of b41G, and the necessary matters are integrated into 18:00 on the same day and entered in the form of 241GP in the form of b4.00 on the same day. The situation list was destroyed after being transferred to 28:00 on the 241st day (the number of persons, the day of the implementation, and the scheduled matters to be reported by the 208:00 on the following day). The following day was written as a separate situation in which the North Korean trend is recorded, and it was directly delivered to the AP headquarters and the large situation room directly.

2) On the day of the instant accident, the two sub-party 2 recorded the head of the relevant situation and the log, and the head of the four sub-party 4, the head of the four sub-party 2 who was transferred 241GP work from the two sub-party 2 sub-party 4, on the day of the instant accident, received from the workers in the two sub-party 15:00, the list of the visitors on the day of the accident, etc. was recorded, and then incinerated and disposed of the situation list at around 22:0, considering that the list of visitors was recorded on the day of the accident, the military police officer of the first sub-party 1 in charge of the first investigation did not take measures to secure the above situation list, etc.

3) In addition, on March 3, 1998, the military police officer of the first military police group requested Non-party 9 of the U.S. military investigation unit to investigate the situation of the 241GP on the date of the accident, the situation situation of the above common security unit's situation room, and the investigation by the U.S. military branch against the U.S. military units, such as the fleet's commander, etc. However, at the time, the investigator reported the fact that there was no other special circumstances in relation to the above party's party's party's party's party, and it was not bound to keep the records. Since then, it was impossible to confirm the fact that the above situation was lost, and it was requested by the bereaved family, such as the plaintiff 1, etc. to find out the situation by time, such as the time of arrival of a meal vehicle, but it was confirmed that the situation was lost.

4) At the time of the instant accident alleged by Nonparty 3 from the time of the primary investigation, Nonparty 3 submitted the document of “business report” to an investigative agency on May 11, 1998 by printing out the document of “business report” on a screen to prepare the document of business report in preparation for the registry, and again, Nonparty 3 opened the computer from 22:00 on the day before the instant accident occurred to 10:00 on the day of the accident to 12:00 on the day of the accident, and from 10:0 on the day of the accident to 12:00 on the day of the accident. However, in order for the first investigation agency to verify the contents of the business report, Nonparty 45 demanded Nonparty 3 to submit the computer to Nonparty 45 on the mid-term ledger to verify the contents of the business report, but Nonparty 45 did not submit the computer to the investigative agency on the ground that the said computer was a U.S. military property, and there was no actual work

5) On June 19, 1998, Nonparty 3 had the aforementioned computer at the time of transfer to the headquarters of the Korea Military Support Group of the United States of America on June 19, 1998, and had a hard disc from Yongsan around August 199, so that the contents of the above work can not be restored as a result. The military investigation agency later caused the failure to secure material evidence by seizing the above computer.

(f) Prejudgment of the private person

1) After the accident of this case, Nonparty 4 received a report from Nonparty 3 that the accident of this case occurred at the site of accident, confirmed the dead body, confirmed the death, and determined that the Kim decoration committed suicide, and was wirelessly known to the large situation room. Nonparty 24 received the situation that the U.S. situation officer was presumed to have been inside the JSA region from Nonparty 46 of the U.S. situation officer around 12:40, and confirmed the situation that the accident of this case was presumed to have been the suicide of Kim Jong-hun, and reported it to the vice-chief of the Korea-U.S. military headquarters commander via the report. During that process, the accident of this case was known to the media and reported that the accident of this case was committed suicide on the day.

2) At around 18:20 on the same day, the body of Kim hun was transferred to a large medical room, and around 23:00 on February 25, 1998, which was the day following the commencement of the investigation. At that time, the military doctor Nonparty 16, while issuing a written autopsy immediately after the autopsy, indicated “self-injury” in the type and column of death, issued a written autopsy, and then issued a written autopsy stating “self-injury” to the bereaved family members through investigators, and did not enter whether the body was self-injury or to be examined later. One of the main motives of the military doctor at the time determined that the body was suicide was suicide, but the room was attached to the area adjacent to the entrance, and it was found that the family members were removed from the investigation room at the second time, but it was found that the family members had been removed from the investigation room at the time.

(g) Announcement of the results of the first investigation by the military judicial police officer;

On April 29, 1998, military judicial police officers were unable to know the exact motive for suicide of the accident in this case jointly with the U.S. military forces, but they could not find out suspicions as a result of the investigation of the small groups in the 241GP at the time, and there were no physical evidence and other evidence that were sealed in the 241GP at the time and there were no traces of the Kim Ho's clothes or the accident site, and they presented Kim Ho-hun to prove suicides by their own pistols as a result of field investigation and evidence appraisal.

(h)the second and third investigation;

1) On June 1, 1998, the prosecution division of the Army Headquarters in receipt of the investigation record as to the above investigation team was organized, and the investigation was commenced from June 1, 1998. On June 23, 1998, the prosecutor's office requested the non-party 16 of the prosecutor's office to inquire about the fact-finding report. On June 23, 1998, the non-party 16 of the prosecutor's office summoned the prosecutor's office as to the non-party 3 of the following year, and conducted an in-depth and in-depth examination as to the non-party 3 and the sub-party 3's performance by time, etc.

2) On September 1, 1998, at the time of the attendance of the bereaved family members and the bereaved family members Kim Jong-chul et al., the Military Prosecutors' Office heard the differences in the number of old and female, and viewed slovad. On September 8, 1998, after receiving on-site collection evidence from the U.S. military survey, conducted an appraisal on the shot and powder reaction. On October 6, 1998, at the request of the bereaved family members of the U.S., requested the U.S. military appraisal and the differences in the number of old and female, and investigated the relevant persons by examining the related documents, such as the firearms issuance ledger, and conducted an examination on the suspicion that the accident that occurred by the bereaved family members of the U.S. was not Kim Ho-hun, and conducted an in-depth investigation on the experience of Kim Jong-hun's high school and the SSA selection records, and obtained a statement from the related persons, and also conducted an in-depth investigation on the results of the examination on the video evidence.

3) As seen in paragraph 1-e (1) of this Article, the Ministry of National Defense organized a special joint investigation group on December 9, 1998 and started a full-time re-investigation. The Ministry of National Defense, as seen in paragraph 1-e (1) of this Article, conducted various experiments and tests, such as on-site visits and investigations on 6 occasions, on-site visits and investigations on 17 unit members, on-site investigation, on-site investigation and on-site investigation, on-site investigation and on-site detection devices investigation, on-site investigation, on-site investigation and on-site detection devices investigation, on-site investigation, on-site investigation and on-site investigation, on-site investigation, on-site investigation and on-site investigation, on-site investigation, on-site investigation and on-site detection tests, on-site investigation, and on-

(2) Determination

(A) In general, in determining that there is negligence on the grounds that the investigative agency violated or neglected an official duty, it is considered that it would be a matter of careful caution to readily conclude that the investigative agency’s activities are in breach of official duty in the light of the fact that the investigative agency’s activities or judgments do not depend on external impacts, but on the professional knowledge and experience of them, as long as there is a limit in ability or knowledge, there is a limitation in human and material facilities, there is a limit in the investigative authority or system, and there is a limitation in the investigative authority or system, and there is also a limitation in the investigation authority, in light of the special characteristics of the area subject to investigation, etc. of the investigation authority or the investigation authority, and that there is a limitation in the investigation authority or the investigation authority, and that the evaluation of various materials from the investigation result may be flexible and absolute, and that various opinions can be divided for each person who performs it. However, in light of the principle of rule of law, if there is an objective and apparent error in the investigation authority’s activities or judgment, and if there is an infringement of rights or legal interests, it can be recognized.

This principle is reasonable in the inside of the military, which is a special organization of the State, and therefore, even in the event of a crime or accident inside the military, the investigative agency bears official duties within the above scope. In general, since the military is a group under strict control under the direct control of the State and has the characteristics of blocking external contact, the investigation is conducted in the situation where the participation or surveillance of interested parties such as the victim is not guaranteed even in the case of a case or accident in the military, and the access to the evidence or materials is not permitted in the military. In addition, in order to perform the duty of military imposed on the Constitution, if the citizen enters the military, the State will take over the soldiers from the guardians, such as their family members, and the State will bear the duty of care for the life and body of the soldiers, and if the person's entrance in the military causes a new accident, the State should clarify the contents and the cause of the accident and take appropriate measures against the person's own duties, and thus, the State should take appropriate measures against the general investigative agency.

On the other hand, parents and guardians, etc. who sent their children or wards to the military to perform the duty of military service shall be deemed to have the right to know about the above or above rights of the State, and further to have the right to strict and thorough investigation into the contents and causes thereof. In the event of infringement of such rights and personal legal interests, parents or guardians, etc. who supported and brought up the soldiers in question and sent them to the military forces may seek damages from the tort. In particular, if the death occurs inside the military forces, the investigating military investigation agency shall thoroughly preserve the accident site from the early investigation stage to prevent any misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the bereaved family members, and collect and determine evidence related to the private persons, and shall collect and determine the substantial truth. Unlike the cases where the death occurred during the military service as suicide by an investigative agency, if the death occurred during the military service, they shall be deemed to have a duty of care to establish a specific military investigation agency as an infringement of personal interests, such as the Act on the Honor and Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Military Pension Act, social benefits in accordance with the Military Pension Act, and veterans benefits.

However, the duty of a State agency cannot be extended generally (such as in the case of prisoners, etc., it can be partially inferred if the State can accept and manage a person's disease and recognize his duty to protect him), and personal legal interests such as the right to know and the right to request an investigation as above should be recognized only for the family directly and closely related to him except for the parent who sent his child to the military unit or the first guardian (in the case of a citizen of the attached Republic of Korea, the performance of military service is not only a new duty but also a right to honorary service. Since there is doubt that there is a case where a doctor's house in the past military unit has been dealt with as a result of a unilateral investigation of a military investigation agency, it cannot be denied that the military officer or his guardian sent him to the military unit was unable to receive trust on the safety and treatment of the person's body in the course of performing the duty of military service. In this regard, it seems that the military investigation agency and the military investigative agency should operate the committee as mentioned above in the above duty.

(B) The first investigation of the military investigation agency regarding the instant accident should have been conducted for a considerable period of time by making it clear that it had been conducted by Nonparty 1, who did not have been engaged in the investigation into the instant accident, and a series of investigation processes leading thereto under Article 264 of the Military Court Act. Therefore, in a case where it is acknowledged that there is doubt that there was a change in the status of the body and the scene of the accident, the military judicial police officer who did not have been engaged in the investigation into the instant accident should take necessary measures without delay pursuant to Article 24 of the Regulations on Military Prosecution Affairs and take necessary measures according to the instructions of the military prosecutor, and the military judicial police officer in charge of the first investigation of the instant accident should not have been able to find out the current status of the scene of the accident, such as fingerprinting and removing the current status of the accident, and should not have been able to prove the current status of the scene of the accident, such as making it clear that the area of the accident was under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

Therefore, the investigator in charge of the military investigation agency under the defendant's jurisdiction neglected his duty to investigate the case of change of Kim decoration, which is a duty, and thus infringed upon the plaintiffs' personal legal interests, such as the right to know and reputation of the deceased who were in military service. It can be sufficiently confirmed in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs who sent their awareness or punishment to the military as an honorary officer were omitted in the suspicion and suppression, and suffered mental suffering from damage to reputation, etc., so the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the violation of the above duty (the accident of the deceased, upon his death, was judged rapidly as a suicide through the military unit members such as the US military court and the military commander, and the report was made on that day, that the military prosecutor in charge of the autopsy committed a suicide through the press, prepared a written autopsy immediately after the completion of suicide and deleted it, and did not have any influence on the investigation authority's investigation, and it appears that the military judicial police officer did not have any influence on the investigation.

On the other hand, the common guard district of the case belongs to the area under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Headquarters. Even if the accident occurred, it is difficult for the Korean military investigation agency to use the first investigation authority for the first time after the occurrence of the accident, there is no express agreement between the United Nations Headquarters and the defendant on the issue of the right to investigate criminal acts committed in the above area. Article 22 of the Agreement on the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea and the United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea relating to the status of the United States Armed Forces in the United Nations Headquarters and there is room for controversy in interpretation as to whether it is applied to crimes committed in the area under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Headquarters, and there is no established investigation practice regarding the investigation in the above area (However, the Korean Armed Forces in the JSA is also a member of the Korean Army Headquarters to exercise the first investigation authority of the Korean Armed Forces, but it is difficult for the Korean Armed Forces to use the first investigation authority for the first time in the area under the jurisdiction of the United States Armed Forces to use the first investigation authority for the investigation.

(C) However, with respect to the second and third investigation after the first investigation, as seen above, the military investigation agency concluded that the second and third investigation was conducted in the direction of respecting the opinion of autopsy through summons, experiment and appraisal of all related persons, such as autopsy directly in charge of autopsy at the second investigation. The third investigation by the joint investigation group of the Ministry of National Defense also held a legal debate as to an unsatisfy gun accident, which led to suicide by many legal scholars, and the subsequent investigation process did not reveal evidence of satisfying it. Even if the accident in this case occurred in the operation jurisdiction of the United Nations forces, and the disclosure investigation was limited after the second investigation, it appears that it was difficult to conclude that the second investigation process or second investigation process could not be concluded from the point of view that it was unreasonable to conclude that it was difficult to conclude that the second investigation process or second investigation was conducted by the plaintiffs from the point of view that it could not be objectively determined by the fact that there was a lack of evidence or evidence from the second investigation process.

(D) Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant’s personal relationship between the Kim Ho-hun and the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff 1, as the head of the military high-ranking position who graduated from the Army, had his own children go to the Army and actively serve in the military, leading to the performance of the duties of national defense. The Kim Ho-hun, as the military officer of the Army, was not only the above 18th, but also the mother of Plaintiff 3, the only sentence with Plaintiff 2, who was the mother of the Army, had been placed in Bhutan for a long time. Moreover, even if the accident of this case occurred in the U.S. military under the jurisdiction of the U.S. military, it appears that the Defendant did not make a final investigation into the case of the Plaintiff 1, which was conducted by the U.S. military judicial police officer of the Republic of Korea, but also did not depend on the Defendant’s final investigation into the case of the Plaintiff 2, which was conducted after the second investigation into the military.

4. Determination as to the claim for damages due to defamation

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, by pointing out false facts such as the Plaintiff’s motive Nonparty 10, Nonparty 10, among the co-ordination groups, committed a tort that defames the Plaintiffs’ honor by pointing out false facts, such as “the families that have no choice but to kill,” and “the country in which she tried to send the Gami to the National Cemetery

Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties that Nonparty 10 announced the investigation results and explained the circumstances leading up to the transfer of Kim JSA to the nearby people in the process of spreading legitimacy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 10 made a statement as alleged in the Plaintiffs, and there is no specific assertion or proof as to when and to whom anyone the above statement was made, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff 1 and 2 to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5,00,000 won per annum from January 9, 2000 to February 17, 2004, and 20% per annum under the Civil Act until 20% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 200), since the plaintiff 3 is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum per annum from each of the above provisions of Article 3 (1) of the former Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 200), the plaintiffs' remaining claims for damages for delay from the above part of Article 3 (1) of the amended Special Act No. 201 to 30% per annum of the Constitutional Court are without merit.

Judges Kim Tae-dae (Presiding Justice)