1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "It is difficult for the plaintiff to see this case" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "(it is alleged that the police act does not correspond to confinement, even if the police act does not correspond to confinement, the prosecutor should have applied the abuse of authority under Article 123 of the Criminal Act or the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, or should have been punished under Article 12 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. However, this is difficult to accept in light of the above legal principles." In addition, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in the part of the judgment of the

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the prosecutor filed a complaint against the abuse of authority against J et al. for the crime of abuse of authority and confinement, again appealed against the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, and the prosecutor in charge also dismissed the appeal by significantly violating the duty as prosecutor. The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above tort.

However, in order for a prosecutor to conduct a prosecution or non-prosecution to be deemed illegal, since there is only a reasonable and absolute interpretation, various opinions can be divided depending on the person who conducts it, and when considering the limit of human ability, the decision is not in accordance with the general legal concept. In other words, in a case where it is deemed that the disposition was an obvious non-regular judgment even to the general public who has a sound common sense, and in light of the empirical and logical rules, it must be a case where there is a clear defect that it is impossible to affirm the rationality of the decision. Thus, the decision to dismiss the appeal by the public prosecutor in charge is against the empirical rule and the empirical rule.