Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Plaintiff 2, the legal representative of Plaintiff 3, the legal representative of Plaintiff 4, the legal representative of Plaintiff 5, the legal representative of Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 9 legal representative of Plaintiff 10 (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Jeong Young-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

April 22, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9 3,00,000, 1,000,000, 4, and 5 respectively, 1,000,000, 7, and 8 for the plaintiffs 1,000, 1,000,0000, 1,000, and 1,000,000 to the plaintiffs 10, and 5% per annum from November 1, 201 to May 29, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant pays to the plaintiff 1, 3, 6, and 9 30 million won, 7,500,000 won, 7,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4, 5,000 won to the plaintiff 5,000 won, 5,000 won to the plaintiff 7, 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff 8, 10,500,000 won to the plaintiff 10, 9,000,000 won to the plaintiff 10 from November 1, 2010 to the delivery date of the application for amendment of the claim of this case, and 20% per annum to the next day from the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the plaintiffs

(1) Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9 are middle school after they were placed in custody for a month due to the special rape or the suspicion of quasi-rape with respect to Nonparty 1, as seen below by the investigation agency to which the Defendant belongs. Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the parents of Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 10, as the father and mother of Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 9, as the father and mother of Plaintiff 9.

(2) Plaintiffs 1 and 3 were juveniles of 14-17 years old, around 2010, who were 195 students, 6196 students, and 9 were 193 students and who were 14-17 years old at the time when they were investigated by an investigative agency due to the above suspicion.

B. Progress of investigation into sexual assault cases against Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9

(1) The investigation of the sexual assault case against Nonparty 1 began with Nonparty 2’s information on July 19, 2010 by the head of ○○ Dong Office Social Welfare Team on July 19, 2010. The police who was informed that Nonparty 1 (the age of 18 at that time) was forced to engage in indecent act by force from one male male at the beginning of 30th and the beginning of 50th century was confirmed through an interview with the informant from July 19, 2010 to July 29, 2010, and submitted a written complaint from Nonparty 1 on July 30, 2010 to Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 on July 2010.

(2) At the time of investigating the victim on August 5, 2010, Nonparty 1 made a statement of additional damage, in addition to the statement that Nonparty 1 was sexually indecent act from the Dongdong-dong at the 304 ○○○ apartment apartment complex located in Suwon-si, △△△-dong (hereinafter “○○ apartment”), Nonparty 1 also made a statement of additional damage that he was sexually abused from the Dongdong-dong at the same place on the same day around 2010. In this case, the name of “Nonindicted 5, 9, 6, and 7” was mentioned in the perpetrator’s name, and there was a specific information that Nonparty 1 was a middle student living in the ○○○ apartment at 306 dong-dong, Suwon-si.

(3) On the credibility of Nonparty 1’s above statement, the child behavior analysis specialist “it is necessary to determine the victim’s awareness ability through an interview with the victim and his guardian to determine the credibility of the statement, and the victim’s statement is likely to have been contaminated through several times of the statement and consultation. The victim’s statement of sexual assault damage was assessed as “the reservation to determine the accuracy of the reliable statement or specific information. The police conducted an investigation by the management office on August 18, 2010 and investigated Nonparty 7 as the witness by requesting Nonparty 7 to voluntarily attend the meeting after a specific voluntary appearance.

In the above witness examination, on July 19, 2010, Nonparty 7 stated that: (a) on the part of the above witness examination, Plaintiff 3, a middle school captain of Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 1 wanted to engage in dial-a-related business, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 1; (b) on the part of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2: (c) on the part of his hand, Nonparty 3 and himself, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 1 had sexual assaulted Nonparty 1’s chest; and (d) on the part of July 22, 2010, Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 8 induced Nonparty 1 to commit sexual assault by the above 304 way and induced Nonparty 1 to the 304-dong rooftop; and (c) Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 1 stated that Nonparty 1 had been on the roof of Plaintiff 1.

(4) On September 8, 2010, Nonparty 1 stated that Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 6, and Nonparty 10 were sent to Nonparty 7, Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 8 from the 304-dong ○○ Jeju apartment apartment on the 304-dong 304-dong, and their chest were sent to Nonparty 9, and that Nonparty 9 was sent to Nonparty 304-dong 304-dong 201, and that Nonparty 1 was sent to Nonparty 9, as in the 00-dong 304-dong 2010-dong 304.

(5) The police officer who found the charge of the crime committed by Plaintiffs 3, 6, 1, and 9 from Nonparty 7’s statement and Nonparty 1’s statement conducted voluntarily and investigated Plaintiff 3, 6, 1, and Nonparty 9. The police officer, who took place on September 15, 2010, issued a statement that recognized the facts of the crime at the time of the police investigation, but denied the facts of the crime from the second police investigation conducted on September 18, 2010. Plaintiff 1 denied the facts of the crime from the time of the first police investigation conducted on September 16, 2010.

(6) (A) However, upon being investigated by the police on September 17, 2010 on the suspect status, Nonparty 7 denied the facts of the crime at the time of the interrogation, and upon recognizing the facts of the crime, Nonparty 1, 3, and Plaintiff 6’s reversal to Nonparty 1’s opinion that it was true at the time of the second interrogation of the suspect on the same day, and all of the facts of the crime were admitted, and Nonparty 8, who was investigated by the police for the year of the Security Act, made a statement to the same effect as the above Nonparty 7’s reversal at the time of the investigation on September 18, 2010.

(B) On September 19, 2010, Nonparty 11 submitted a written complaint on the above retaliation crime and was investigated as a witness. Nonparty 7 stated that Nonparty 1 was assaulted by Plaintiff 1 on August 20, 2010 and September 12, 2010 on the ground that Nonparty 7 was true about sexual assault crime at the time of the police investigation.

(7) On September 19, 2010, Nonparty 12 had a counselor show a total of 8 photographs attached to two pictures with no relation to the suspect at the hospital hospitalized by Nonparty 1, who had shown 6 sexual intercourse and had a sexual assault directly on the photograph. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 stated two photographs unrelated to the victim 3, 304, “the son”, and put the chest on the son’s photograph No. 2, 304, and 30, the son’s photograph No. 9, 30, 7, 30, 30, 30, 40, 7, and 8, 30, 300, 4,000, 7,000, 30,000,000 and 7,00,000,00,000 and 7,00,00,00,00.

(8) After that, on October 2, 2010 upon the prosecutor’s request for a detention warrant with respect to Plaintiffs 1, 3, and 6, a detention warrant was conducted on October 2, 2010. The judge who conducted the above detention warrant was issued a detention warrant on the ground that the above Plaintiffs are juveniles, but there is an inevitable reason to be detained.

(9) On October 8, 2010, Nonparty 8, at the time of being investigated by the police under the presence of Nonparty 13 of his father, recorded the content that Plaintiff 1 had been sexually abused, and Plaintiff 1’s father, Plaintiff 2, who was the father of Plaintiff 1, stated that it is different from the fact, and Nonparty 13 made a statement that “the punishment was not sexually abused,” and Nonparty 13 made a false statement to the effect that “the other parents who expressed the truth of this case from time to time make phone calls or find out, distorted the truth, distorted the truth, make a recording, and use it as it is. In the future, Nonparty 8 submitted an application to the effect that “The cooperation of the investigative agency is requested so that it is not received by intimidation or request for the investigation of the truth of this case.”

(10) On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 3 filed a request with the court for review of legality of detention, and submitted the written statement, etc. prepared by Nonparty 8 as favorable data. On October 10, 2010, the court rendered a decision to dismiss the said request on the ground that the continued detention against the said Plaintiffs is necessary.

(11) On October 6, 2010, the police arrested Plaintiff 9 by a warrant of arrest issued under the charge of violating Special Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape, etc. against the disabled). Plaintiff 9 denied the facts of the crime at the time of the investigation into the suspect on October 6, 2010, however, on the two occasions conducted on October 7, 2010, the police reversed the statement of denial during the investigation into the suspect interrogation and recognized all the facts of the crime, and was detained on October 9, 2010.

(12) On October 11, 2010, the police sent Plaintiff 1, 3, and 6 to the prosecution as a criminal charge concerning special rape and retaliation, and Plaintiff 9 as a criminal charge concerning quasi-rape against the disabled. The prosecutor made a statement to the effect that Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8 were different from the previous one at the prosecutor’s investigation stage, and the victim Nonparty 1’s statement was also reversed, the police continued the investigation on October 29, 201 by releasing Plaintiff 1, 3, 6, and 9, and on January 7, 201, on the ground that “the part of confession made by Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8, etc., who cannot recognize newness, and the victim’s statement alone cannot be recognized, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements (including additional numbers), Gap's statements (including additional numbers), Gap's statements (including additional numbers), 22-3, 38, 39, 47, 48, 66, Eul's evidence Nos. 16-19, 22, 24, 26, 34

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant Judicial Police Officers did not properly conduct basic investigation, including conducting investigation, based on the statements made by assaulting Nonparty 7, who is a related person, rather than scientific and objective evidence. ② As such, Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9 were the proviso of illegal and defective investigation, and did not take any measures to ensure the voluntariness of statements, such as the attendance of a person in trust relationship, even though they were aware that they were minors, in violation of the basic principles of juvenile investigation cases as prescribed by the Criminal Investigation Rules, such as failure to take any measures to ensure the voluntariness of statements, such as the attendance of a person in trust relationship, etc., and received false confession statements from Plaintiffs 3, 6, and 9 after infringing the defense power and the right to refuse to make statements. ③ Even after having received a short answer by providing information on the above case first, the Defendant fabricated the above statements by means of replacing inquiries and answers during the process of making statements in the protocol, and thereby making the Plaintiffs suffer property damage from the above plaintiffs’ mental harm caused to the above Plaintiffs’ right to be protected under the warrant of arrest.

3. Determination

A. Occurrence of damages liability

(1) The point of illegal and defective basic investigation

앞서 본 사실 및 갑 제64, 69호증, 을 제3~15호증의 각 기재, 증인 소외 14의 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 소외 1에 대한 피해사실 조사과정에서 소외 1이 자발적으로 동네 또래들로부터도 성폭행을 당한 사실을 자연스럽게 진술하였고, 소외 1의 이와 같은 피해진술에 대하여 신빙성이 있는 편이라는 전문가의 의견이 있었으므로 수사의 단서를 확보한 수사기관으로서는 수사에 착수하는 것이 당연한 책무인 점, ② 이에 수사기관은 소외 7에게 자진출석을 요청하여 사전면담을 통해 진술을 상당부분 청취한 후 소외 7을 참고인 신분으로 조사하였는데, 당시 소외 7에 대한 수사가 개시되어 소외 7이 피의자 지위에 있게 되었다고 단정할 수 없고, 진술거부권 고지를 잠탈할 의도로 피의자신문이 아닌 참고인 조사의 형식을 취한 것으로 볼 만한 사정도 기록상 찾을 수 없으므로 소외 7을 참고인 신분으로 최초 조사한 것을 위법하다고 할 수 없는 점, ③ 소외 7은 참고인조사 당시 태권도장에 데려다달라고 하는 등 비교적 자유로운 분위기에서 진술한 것으로 보이고, 피의자 신분으로 조사를 받을 당시에도 범행사실을 모두 인정하면서 ‘형사아저씨가 따귀를 때려서 얼음찜질을 해주고, 총으로 쏴 죽인다 협박했다’고 거짓진술 하기로 원고 1 등과 모의하였다고 진술하였는바 당시 아버지인 소외 11이 입회하고 있었던 점에서 위 진술에 신빙성이 있다고 판단되는 점(따라서 참고인조사 당시 그 전날부터 불법 구금되어 있었다거나 수사기관의 폭행, 협박이 있었다는 취지의 증인 소외 7의 증언은 믿지 아니한다), ④ 수사기관은 범행일시 무렵인 2010. 7. 14.부터 2010. 8. 10.까지의 공범으로 지목된 원고 6, 원고 3, 원고 1 및 소외 7, 소외 8, 원고 3 등의 휴대폰 발신기지국을 조사하였는데, 그 결과 대부분 범행지 인근을 그 구역으로 하는 수원시 △△구 ○○동 또는 ☆☆구 ▽▽동 소재 기지국으로 확인되었고, 범행장소로 지목된 ○○아파트 304동 옥상과 관련하여 현장 및 목격자 조사를 진행하고, 피해자를 상대로 선면조사를 실시하는 등 수사 초기에 보강조사를 통해 피해자 및 피의자 진술의 신빙성을 확인한 점 등 수사기록에 나타난 제반 사정에 비추어 볼 때, 원고들이 제출한 증거만으로는 경찰의 기초수사에 어떠한 부실이나 위법이 있다고 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) Whether due process of investigation is complied with (Sitting with trust-related persons, and notification of right to refuse to make statements)

본문내 포함된 표 [관련규정] 형사소송법 제244조의5(장애인 등 특별히 보호를 요하는 자에 대한 특칙) 검사 또는 사법경찰관은 피의자를 신문하는 경우 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 때에는 직권 또는 피의자·법정대리인의 신청에 따라 피의자와 신뢰관계에 있는 자를 동석하게 할 수 있다. 1. 피의자가 신체적 또는 정신적 장애로 사물을 변별하거나 의사를 결정·전달할 능력이 미약한 때 2. 피의자의 연령·성별·국적 등의 사정을 고려하여 그 심리적 안정의 도모와 원활한 의사소통을 위하여 필요한 경우 범죄수사규칙 제3조(인권 보호) ① 경찰관은 수사를 할 때에는 개인의 인권을 존중하고 신속·공정·성실하게 하여야 한다. ② 경찰관은 수사를 할 때에는 피의자, 피해자 등 사건 관계인의 명예를 훼손하지 않도록 주의하여야 한다. 제61조(피의자의 신뢰관계자 동석) ① 「형사소송법」 제244조의5 규정에 따라 피의자와 동석할 수 있는 신뢰관계에 있는 자는 피의자의 직계친족, 형제자매, 배우자, 가족, 동거인, 보호시설 또는 교육시설의 보호 또는 교육담당자 등 피의자의 심리적 안정과 원활한 의사소통에 도움을 줄 수 있는 자를 말한다. ② 사법경찰관은 피의자 또는 법정대리인이 제1항에 기재된 자에 대한 동석 신청을 한 때에는 신청인으로부터 별지 제23호 서식의 동석 신청서 및 피의자와의 관계를 소명할 수 있는 자료를 제출받아 기록에 편철하여야 한다. 다만, 신청서 작성에 시간적 여유가 없는 경우 등에 있어서는 신청서를 작성하게 하지 않고, 수사보고서나 조서에 그 취지를 기재하는 것으로 갈음할 수 있으며, 대상자와 피의자와의 관계를 소명할 서류를 동석 신청시에 제출받지 못하는 경우에는 조사의 긴급성, 동석의 필요성 등이 현저히 존재하는 때에 한하여 예외적으로 동석조사 이후에 자료를 제출받아 기록에 편철할 수 있다. ③ 사법경찰관은 제2항에 의한 신청이 없더라도 동석의 필요성이 있다고 인정되는 때에 있어서는 피의자와의 신뢰관계 유무를 확인한 후 직권으로 신뢰관계자를 동석하게 할 수 있다. 다만, 이러한 취지를 수사보고서나 조서에 기재하여야 한다. ④ 사법경찰관은 수사기밀 누설이나 신문방해 등을 통해 수사에 부당한 지장을 초래할 우려가 있다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 존재하는 때에는 동석을 거부할 수 있다. ⑤ 사법경찰관은 동석자가 수사기밀 누설이나 신문방해 등을 통해 부당하게 수사의 진행을 방해하는 경우에는 신문 도중에 동석을 중지시킬 수 있다. 제207조(소년사건 수사의 기본) ① 경찰관은 소년사건을 수사할 때에는 소년의 건전한 육성을 도모하는 마음을 가져야 한다. ② 경찰관은 소년사건을 수사할 때에는 반사회성 있는 소년의 환경 조정과 성행의 교정에 관한 보호처분 또는 형사처분에 필요한 특별한 심리자료를 제공할 것을 염두에 두어야 한다. 제208조(소년의 특성의 고려) 경찰관은 소년사건을 수사할 때에는 소년의 특성에 비추어 되도록 다른 사람의 이목을 끌지 않는 장소에서 온정과 이해를 가지고 부드러운 어조로 조사하여야 한다. 인권보호를 위한 경찰관 직무규칙 제2조(정의) 이 규칙에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음과 같다. 3. "사회적 약자"라 함은 장애인, 19세 미만의 자(이하 "소년"이라 한다), 여성, 노약자, 외국인, 기타 신체적·경제적·정신적·문화적인 차별 등으로 어려움을 겪고 있어 사회적 보호가 필요한 자를 말한다. 제8조(폭행·가혹행위 등 금지) ① 경찰관은 직무수행 전 과정 에서 폭행·가혹행위를 포함하여 신체에 대한 부당한 침해 또는 위협을 가하거나 이를 교사 또는 방조하여서는 아니된다. ② 경찰관은 직무수행 중 폭언, 강압적인 어투, 비하시키는 언어 등을 사용하거나 모욕감 또는 수치심을 유발하는 언행을 하여서는 아니된다. 제10조(사회적 약자 보호) ① 경찰관은 직무수행 중 사회적 약자에 대하여는 그 특성에 따른 세심한 배려를 하여야 한다. ② 경찰관은 직무수행 중 사회적 약자에 대하여는 신뢰관계에 있는 자 또는 의사소통이 가능한 보조인의 참여를 보장하여야 한다.

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) evidence No. 58, evidence No. 33-26, witness Nonparty 15, and Nonparty 14’s testimony and the overall purport of oral proceedings, the investigation agency, around September 15, 2010, voluntarily accompanied Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 6 with suspect status and arrived at the National Police Agency at around 17:00; (b) one of the two personal statement recording rooms was already under investigation; (c) the above Plaintiffs 6 were examined first and waited separately from their guardians; (d) the investigation of Plaintiff 6 continued to be conducted from around 17:50 to 19:40; and (e) the investigation of Plaintiff 15, the mother of Plaintiff 6, who had been installed at the time of the investigation agency, could not be seen as having been allowed to be present at the time of the investigation; and (e) the investigation of Plaintiff 15, who was still present at the time of the investigation agency for pregnancy, from around 200 to the time of the investigation.

(B) Next, the plaintiffs should have the mind to promote the sound fostering of juveniles in accordance with the basic principles of juvenile investigation. The investigation agency should investigate them into the fluencing language with the hot view and understanding. The investigation agency asserted that there was an error in violation of the above basic principles by first using indecent language in the course of investigation with Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9, and by using violent language or tensions, and by using violent language or tensions. However, considering the above plaintiffs' age and the general sexual climate and sexual development in the record, the expressions referring to the acts of sex and sexual nature used by the investigation agency in order to efficiently examine are deemed selected on behalf of legal terms difficult to understand the above plaintiffs, and it cannot be deemed that some indecent expressions have been written in order to cause a sense of insult or shame to the above plaintiffs. Even if considering the characteristics of the juveniles, it is difficult to deem that the above plaintiffs violated the basic principles of juvenile investigation with respect to the above plaintiffs significantly violating the basic principles.

(C) In addition, the Plaintiffs asserted that the right to refuse to make a statement was not substantially guaranteed during the investigation process by Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an act of infringement, such as inducing the waiver of the right to refuse a statement, etc. solely on the written evidence Nos. 54, 55, and 58. Rather, the following facts that can be recognized from the written evidence No. 23-25, and 32 are revealed, namely, that the judicial police officer can exercise the right to refuse to make a statement and the right to receive assistance from the said Plaintiffs at the time of the investigation into the suspect. It can be evaluated that the judicial police officer either entered answers to the exercise of the right to refuse a statement, etc. or obtained a signature and seal from the fact that the judicial police officer affixed a signature and seal on the part of the suspect’s answer

(3) The manipulation of statements and evidence

(A) In a case where a judicial police officer, who is an investigative agency, or a public prosecutor, has a suspicion of a crime against a suspect and is likely to receive a judgment of conviction, an indictment may be instituted through the arrest or detention of a suspect in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Thus, in a case where there are reasonable grounds for a judicial police officer or a public prosecutor to have a suspicion that the suspect is likely to receive a judgment of conviction, it shall be attributable only to a case where the judgment of an investigative agency, even if the judgment of innocence becomes final and conclusive on the grounds that there is no evidence sufficient to prove the existence of the crime through the subsequent trial process, is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical or logical rules (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da20924 delivered on August 13, 1993, 2001Da23447 delivered on February 22, 2002, etc.). This legal doctrine likewise applies to a case where a judicial police officer or a public prosecutor judges that a specific criminal offense was committed against a suspect, and it is not sufficient to prove the existence of a crime by the prosecutor alone.

The facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 24 and 56, Eul evidence Nos. 25, and the testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by the witness non-party 14, are as follows: ① the facts suspected of having been proved by the victim's statement was the proviso of investigation; in the case of sexual crimes against the juvenile, it is highly probable that the victim's statement was only the only evidence for the victim's statement, and the victim's statement was insufficient or sufficient amount of money is required to do so; ② the facts and the accomplice were identified by the non-party 7's statement at the time of the initial investigation into the suspect; the defendant 3 also stated the crime of sexual assault at the government office that was not made by the non-party 7 at the time of the initial investigation into the suspect; and the non-party 9 denied the facts of the crime by the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant's guardian at the time of his first investigation into the suspect; and ③ the plaintiff 1, the defendant's guardian at the time of the investigation to the defendant 6's confession.

(B) However, in light of the fact that it is impossible for the police to write all the contents of the statement in the interrogation process, the plaintiffs 6 and 3' suspect interrogation protocol (Evidence A 23 and 24) and video recordings recorded in the above interrogation process, it is difficult to judge that the police fabricated hearsay evidence in the manner that the suspect intentionally did not make any statement or contains any contents entirely different from the purpose of the statement. However, the police has a duty of care to exclude the prosecution from the process of making the suspect's statement and to maintain objectivity in the protocol so as not to distort the purpose of the statement. Accordingly, the actual examination of the plaintiffs 6 and 3 has a duty of care to maintain objectivity in the protocol so that it does not distort the date and time of the crime, place of the crime, the place of the crime, the process and contents of the preparation and preparation of the crime, and the details of the crime, etc. recorded in the investigation agency's answer to the majority of questions, but it seems that the plaintiffs' assertion that the suspect's statement was voluntarily prepared in the interrogation process after changing the prosecutor's answer.

(4) The point of illegal search and seizure

In full view of the statement and the purport of evidence No. 58 of the plaintiff 9, the investigative agency arrested the plaintiff 9 as the charge of sexual assault against the non-party 1, and brought the female house suspected of being stolen to the investigative agency, and brought the plaintiff 9 to the investigative agency, and questioning the source of the bank one time during the interrogation of the defendant as sexual assault case, and it is acknowledged that the defendant returned the bank immediately to the guardian without making an investigation as to the suspicion of larceny. According to the above facts of the recognition, it is difficult to see that the investigative agency went to the seizure procedure for the above bank, and because the investigative agency forced the plaintiff 9 to confession the crime of sexual assault against the above bank, and caused the plaintiff 9 to investigate the suspect as the sexual assault case, this part of the argument is without merit.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In general, in cases where an investigation and investigation agency committed an illegal act by the investigation agency in the course of investigation, there are special circumstances, such as that if there was no illegal evidence such as confession collected due to the illegal act, the relevant suspect would not reach until he/she is detained or prosecuted, not only the damage directly incurred by the illegal act by the investigation agency but also the damage incurred by the prosecution of detention caused by the illegal act should be claimed by the victim who was the relevant suspect. However, unless there are such special circumstances, the victim can claim compensation only for the damage directly incurred by the illegal act in the course of investigation.

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Plaintiffs 2, 4, 8, and 10, after being detained by Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9, the fact that Plaintiffs 2, 4, 6, and 9 paid KRW 2,500,000 to Plaintiffs 4, 2,000, and 8 paid KRW 5,500,000 to Plaintiffs 4,000, and KRW 10,000, respectively, may be acknowledged. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult for the investigative agency to view that Plaintiff 1, 3, 6, and 9 were guilty of a crime against Defendants 1, 3, and 9, and that there is a reasonable ground for the investigation for a considerable period of time, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the attorney appointment fee was directly incurred by the investigation and negligence that was recognized prior to the investigation.

However, it can be recognized that due to negligence in the course of investigation, the plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9 as well as their guardians suffered mental pain. In full view of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the content and degree of negligence, the age at the time of detention of plaintiffs 1, 3, 3, 6, and 9, the period of detention, the degree of detention and the right to defend the suspect whose custody was restricted, the remaining plaintiffs who are their guardians, make efforts during the investigation period, etc., the amount of consolation money that the defendant is liable to compensate for shall be determined as KRW 3,00,00 for plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, and 9, and the remaining plaintiffs shall be determined as KRW 1,00,00 for each ward.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to dispute over the existence and scope of the defendant's duty to perform as of November 1, 2010 to the plaintiff 1, 3, 6, and 9, respectively, 1,000,000, 4, and 5 (the guardian of the plaintiff 3) to the plaintiff 1,000, 7, and 8 (the guardian of the plaintiff 6), and 1,000,000, and 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 10 (the guardian of the plaintiff 9), and each of them. Since it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's duty to perform as of November 1, 2010 to the plaintiff 2 (the guardian of the plaintiff 1), the plaintiff 4, and the plaintiff 5 (the guardian of the plaintiff 3), as of May 29, 2014, the remainder of the plaintiffs' claim for damages for delay calculated within the scope of each of this case's damages for delay.

Judges Shin Young-man (Presiding Judge)