[1] The case holding that the head of a detention house recognizes the State's liability for damages for violating Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act to confine a prisoner against whom the suspicion of disciplinary action has not been substantiated and to restrict his/her right to interview, etc. in an institution under investigation into a poor environment than that of a general ward

[2] The case holding that the State's liability for damages (defensive materials) is recognized on the ground that the termination of the case by the disciplinary action is illegal by infringing on the right to participate in the trial of the victimized prisoner and infringing on the right to participate in the trial of the victimized prisoner although the victimized prisoner filed a complaint against him/her in accordance with the same paragraph

[3] The case holding that the State's liability for damages (defensive materials) is recognized on the ground that the confinement of a new prisoner in a general ward by force against his will, even though the prison warden did not have any unavoidable reason, violates Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act

[1] The case holding that the head of a detention house recognizes the State's liability for damages (defensive materials) for violating Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act to confine a prisoner against whom the suspicion of disciplinary action has not been clearly explained, in a confinement room in an poor environment than that of the general confinement room and restrict the right

[2] The case holding that the State's liability for damages (defensive materials) is recognized on the ground that the termination of the case by the disciplinary action is illegal by infringing on the right to participate in the trial of the victimized prisoner and infringing on the right to participate in the trial of the victimized prisoner even though the victimized prisoner filed a complaint against the victimized prisoner in response to the same person

[3] The case holding that the State's liability for damages (defensive materials) is recognized on the ground that the confinement of a new prisoner in a general ward by force against his/her will, even though the prison warden did not have any unavoidable reason, violates Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration

[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 18 of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act / [2] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 27 of the Constitution, Articles 196, 246, and 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act

Plaintiff

Korea

June 30, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,80,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 25, 2004 to September 22, 2006 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, while the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 25, 2004 to the date of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged if Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 10-1 through 9, Gap evidence 16-1 through 5, and Eul evidence 33 are collected in the whole purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff was detained for rape on August 29, 2001, and was admitted to the Seoul detention center on September 5, 2001, but was sentenced to five years of imprisonment at the Seoul District Court on December 4, 2001, and the sentence was confirmed on May 31, 2002, and was transferred to the Chuncheon Prison on August 16, 2002, was transferred to the Chuncheon Prison on December 18, 2002, and was transferred to the Chuncheon Prison on June 11, 2004.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff's right was infringed upon by the illegal act of public officials belonging to the defendant as follows, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

(a) Illegal acts in the Seoul detention center;

At around 17:00 on October 9, 2001, the Plaintiff was assaulted by Nonparty 1, a prisoner in the same room in the Seoul detention center, and was investigated into the 15 room of the above detention center from the 10th to the 16th of the same month. On March 13, 2002, the Plaintiff was investigated into the 20 room of the above detention center from March 13, 2002 to the 22th of the same month.

① Although Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act stipulates that a prisoner under investigation as a suspect of disciplinary action may be confined to the inquiry, the victim of assault committed an act of accepting the plaintiff, who is not the suspect of disciplinary action, in the room 15 of the above detention house from October 10, 201 to June 16, 2001. Even if the above investigation is not illegal, the plaintiff's mother's interview during the above investigation period is restricted. Since this is illegal because there is no legal ground, it is a duty to pay 4,00,000 won as consolation money for mental distress.

② At the time of the above investigation and confinement, only three persons were confined in a solitary ward with which only one person can be confined despite the existence of other vacant wards at the time of the above investigation and confinement. Since the toilets of each of the above investigation and confinement wards do not have any separate room, and the body part was exposed to a correctional officer and a ward inmate and thus, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s personal rights and environmental rights, the above investigation and confinement obligation is obligated to pay 2,00,000 won as consolation money for mental suffering.

③ Although the Plaintiff reported the above assault and indecent act to the judicial police officer of the above detention house and made a statement that the perpetrator would be punished in accordance with the law, the above detention house judicial police officer violated the Plaintiff’s right to file a complaint by failing to forward the above case to the prosecutor, and thus, is obliged to pay 6,00,000 won as consolation money for mental distress.

(b) Offenses committed in Chuncheon correctional institutions;

① On September 15, 2002, at around 18:20 on September 15, 2002, the Plaintiff suffered from an assault from Nonparty 3, a prisoner, at the 5 lower-class room of Yancheon Prison, who was the same inmate, and was in a hole and tearing. The above prison judicial police officer, despite the Plaintiff’s strong wish to punish, did not transfer the above case to the prosecutor, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right to file a complaint. Thus, the above prison judicial police officer is obligated to pay KRW 3,00,000 as consolation money for mental suffering.

② On December 18, 2002, the Plaintiff was transferred from the Chuncheon Prison to the Net Prison. As at the time of transfer, the Plaintiff did not send 6 books, lawsuit documents, etc., which are the Plaintiff’s custody, to the Net Prison, and infringed the Plaintiff’s right to use the said custody, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 5,000,000 won as consolation money for mental distress.

③ On June 11, 2004, Nonparty 4 instructed the Plaintiff, who was transferred to Chuncheon prison, to be a mixed ward. The above designation of the ward was illegal designation of the ward, and the Plaintiff cannot comply with it, and the assistant principal on duty requested the assistant principal on duty to receive a written petition prepared by obtaining permission from the head of the relevant prison, but the assistant principal on duty refused to accept it. However, the assistant principal on duty violated Article 4(2) of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7855, Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”). Thus, the above assistant principal on duty is in violation of Article 4(2) of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and thus, it is obligated to pay 200,000 won as consolation money for mental suffering.

④ After the designation of a ward as above, the Plaintiff exercised coercive power to immediately accommodate the newly confined ward without being confined in the ward for newly confined persons. The non-admitting the Plaintiff in the ward for newly confined persons violates Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, and despite the fact that it does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 14-2 of the Criminal Administration Act, the Plaintiff exercised coercive power against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay 2,00,000 won as consolation money for mental suffering.

(c) Offenses committed in a net tent prison;

On March 27, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Minister of Justice for a permit to write a petition and to write an information disclosure statement with the Minister of Justice and an application for an interview with the head of a prison. However, Nonparty 5 only allowed the applicant to write an information disclosure statement and did not take any measures against the remainder of the application. This is unlawful by infringing the prisoner’s right to write a writing and interview with the head of a prison. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 6,00,000 as consolation money for emotional distress.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of illegal acts in the Seoul detention center

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or if Gap evidence 4-7, 8, 9-1, 2, 10-1 through 28, Eul evidence 10-1, 7 through 13, Eul evidence 17-1 through 4, Eul evidence 18, 19-1 through 4, Eul evidence 20-20, Eul evidence 37, 38, Eul evidence 39-1, 2, and Eul evidence 40 are collected to the whole purport of pleadings.

(A) At around 18:00 on October 9, 2001, the Plaintiff, at the 111st floor of the Seoul detention center, Nonparty 1, who was an inmate, was able to engage in bullying in the above ward by taking the bath to the Plaintiff, and taking the purchase from Nonparty 1, who was in charge of the police officer, and taking the purchase from Nonparty 1, who was in charge of the police officer, and was notified that he would receive the following measures from the worker in charge.

(B) On the following day, the head of the detention house: (a) Nonparty 1 arbitrarily used the purchase regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, and forced the Plaintiff to take a bath 3 times a day from September 8, 2001 to June 26, 200; (b) around October 9, 2001, Nonparty 1 threatened the Plaintiff with “the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff was dead, her snow urine urine urine urine urine urbling.” (c) reported her urbling that the Plaintiff did so, but (d) was detained in the ward for investigation, and (e) took measures to prohibit meeting, correspondence, movement, etc. during the investigation period pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Rules on the Punishment of Prisoners and Disciplinary Action.

(C) Accordingly, from October 10, 2001, the Plaintiff was confined in the 15 room of the above detention house, which is a ward for investigation, and was confined in the general ward on the ground that the Plaintiff had a verbal dispute with Nonparty 1 on the 16th of the same month.

(D) On the other hand, Nonparty 1 was subject to a disciplinary measure 2-month grace period from the pertinent detention house disciplinary committee for the same time due to the above assault.

(E) After that, around March 2002, the Plaintiff was released from Nonparty 2, and was detained in the above 6-story of the detention house, which is a ward for investigation, due to suspicion of disturbance of confinement order (use of a voluntary custody) from March 13, 2002, and was confined in the above 6-story of the detention house, which is a ward for investigation, and was subject to a warning disposition on the 22th of the same month, and was confined in the general ward.

(F) On the other hand, Nonparty 2 was subjected to a disciplinary measure of two-month grace period from the disciplinary committee of the above detention house for one month due to the above sexual indecent act.

(G) In the case of the Seoul detention center, up to nine general confinement wards with a large area of 3.05 square meters, and up to seven general confinement wards with a large area of 2.17 square meters. In the investigation confinement wards with a large area of 1.01 square meters, three employees are accommodated in the investigation confinement wards with a large area of 1.01 square meters. The above investigation confinement wards did not install a smuggling-type toilet in order to prevent correctional accidents, such as suicide or self-injury of prisoners, and installed a 65cm wide and 60cm long in the toilet.

(2) Whether confinement in a ward under investigation is lawful

The head of the Dong-gu, Seoul detention center and the head of the Seoul detention center had Nonparty 1 arbitrarily use the purchased goods regardless of the Plaintiff’s will and forced the Plaintiff to take a bath three times a day. On October 9, 2001, the head of Dong-gu reported on the fact that the Plaintiff was threatened with the Plaintiff and was in physical illness on October 18, 2001, and took measures to accommodate the Plaintiff in the investigative confinement room and to prohibit the Plaintiff from meeting, correspondence and physical exercise during the investigation period. As seen above, the head of the Seoul detention center did not prove any particular suspicion against the Plaintiff, but did not admit the Plaintiff in the investigative confinement room of the environment less poor than the ordinary confinement room, and limited the Plaintiff’s right of meeting, etc.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

(3) Whether personal rights, etc. are violated due to excessive confinement in a ward for investigation and installation of toilets, etc.

The fact that a toilet is installed to cover part of a prisoner's body without installing a toilet sealed in the ward for investigation and confinement. As seen above, the prisoner's body, smell and sound are exposed to other prisoners or employees of the detention house, so it seems that the prisoner might cause a sense of shame to the prisoner. On the other hand, among the prisoners confined in the detention house, there is a person who conducts behavior such as self-harm, suicide, harmful act, etc., among the prisoners confined in the detention house, it cannot be denied that there is a need to monitor the prisoner's attitude. In particular, in light of the fact that there is more need for the prisoner being investigated, it is difficult to see that a closed toilet is not installed as illegal, on the sole basis of the fact that part of the body of the prisoner who uses the toilet and the sound seeing the body of the prisoner who uses the toilet, and that a smell is exposed, regardless of other empty wards at the time of the above investigation and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion that all other prisoners were confined in the narrow detention room.

(4) Whether the judicial police officer violated the duty to forward

There is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the perpetrator, according to the plaintiff's report, the Seoul detention center disciplinary committee imposed disciplinary action for the two-month grace period on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the perpetrator, in January of the grace period as seen above. In light of the fact that Article 46 (1) of the Criminal Administration Act provides that disciplinary punishment may be imposed when a prisoner commits an act in conflict with the penal provisions of the Criminal Act, such as the Punishment of Violences, etc., the Seoul detention center judicial police officer on the plaintiff's report, and did not transfer the plaintiff's report to the competent prosecutor's office, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's right to state the procedure of trial (the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff infringed his right to file

(5) Conclusion

As seen above, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering due to the illegal confinement of the above facts. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so in money. Considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the background and period of the above confinement, and the content of the prohibition of disposition during the investigation period, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be compensated by the defendant as KRW 1,00,000.

B. Determination on the assertion of the violation in the Chuncheon Prison

(1) Whether the judicial police officer violated the duty to forward

According to Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 16-1 through 5, Eul evidence 17-1 through 5, Eul evidence 26, and Eul evidence 27, around September 15, 2002, the plaintiff suffered bodily injury from Non-party 3, who is a prisoner in the same ward's 5th and lower court room, from Non-party 3, who is a prisoner in the same ward's 5th and lower court, on September 17, 2002. After being examined by the judicial police officer of the above prison on September 17, 202, the plaintiff clearly expresses his intention to punish Non-party 3. Thus, since the plaintiff clearly expresses his intention to punish Non-party 3, it can be deemed that the plaintiff filed a complaint, so long as the plaintiff's complaint was filed, the judicial police officer of the above prison shall be a criminal case of Non-party 3, and the plaintiff's non-party 3 did not join the court's right to participate in the court as above.

In light of the fact that, according to Article 16(3) of the Guidelines for the Prevention of Violence by Prisoners, the Defendant only agrees with the victim if the cure period is less than two weeks, or if the perpetrator violates his depth of his mistake, it is legitimate to conclude the case as imposing disciplinary punishment on Nonparty 3, taking into account the fact that Nonparty 3’s wife’s wife due to the beta of the victim’s be minor and Nonparty 3 was in depth, and that Nonparty 3 was in violation of his depth.

However, according to Articles 196, 246, and 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in principle, only a prosecutor can decide whether to institute a public prosecution, and judicial police officers can investigate the case under the direction of a prosecutor if there is a complaint by the plaintiff who is a victim. However, it is illegal that a judicial police officer of the Chuncheon prison immediately initiates an investigation and conducts an investigation under the direction of a prosecutor, despite the existence of the plaintiff's complaint, and then concludes the case with a disciplinary disposition without sending it to the prosecutor. Since the above termination disposition is based on the guidelines for the prevention of assault by a prisoner, the illegality of the above termination disposition is not dismissed. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) The violation of the right to use the goods held in custody

In light of the above, the plaintiff could recognize the fact that the plaintiff returned the goods kept in custody again after the plaintiff was transferred to Chuncheon prison, and there is no proof of the fact that the plaintiff applied for the use of the goods kept in custody in the Chuncheon prison. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit because it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was infringed on the right to use the goods kept in custody.

(3) The rejection of the petition

Even if the assistant principal of the Chuncheon Correctional Institution did not receive a written petition submitted by the plaintiff, there is no proof that the assistant principal of the above assistant principal of the duty corresponds to a public official dealing with civil petition affairs under Article 4 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(4) Unconvicted portion of the ward for newly confined persons

According to Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, a newcomer shall be confined in a ward for newcomers except in cases where disease or other unavoidable reasons exist. However, if the newly confinedcomer becomes aware of the overall purport of oral proceedings in each of the statements No. 12 and No. 15-2, the Plaintiff was transferred to Chuncheon prison on June 11, 2004, and the Plaintiff was confined in six above five stories of the above prison against the Plaintiff’s will, and all of the other newly confined persons confined in the above ward are admitted. Thus, the disposition of compulsory confinement of the Plaintiff who falls under the newly confined person against his will against his will is unlawful unless there is any proof of inevitable reasons otherwise.

(5) Conclusion

As above, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered mental pain due to infringement of right to participate in the trial procedure, designation and confinement of illegal wards, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obligated to do so in money. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the arguments, such as the circumstance of the above accusation case and the results of subsequent treatment, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant shall be determined at KRW 5 million.

C. Determination on the assertion of violation in the net Yacheon Prison

If Eul's evidence Nos. 28-1 through 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 29-1 through 3 (excluding the part not trusted in the rear) collected the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed an application for permission to write a petition and disclose information to the Minister of Justice on March 27, 2004 and an interview to the head of the prison. However, around March 27, 2004, the non-party 5 filed an application for permission to write a written application to the Minister of Justice and an interview to the head of the prison. The non-party 5 filed a written application to disclose information only with the head of the prison, and report the remaining application to the head of the prison, and the non-party 1 through 8 did not take any measures against the non-party 28's evidence Nos. 28, and there is no other counter-proof evidence, and the plaintiff violated the right to write the writing and the right to write to the head of the prison. Therefore, if considering all the circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the case, such as the plaintiff's written application

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,800,000 consolation money (1,00,000 won + 500,000 won + 300,000 won +) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 25, 2004 to September 22, 2006, which is the date of the decision of this case, from September 22, 2006, which is the date of the decision of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-deok