1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A requested a constitutional complaint as 2013Hun-Ma750, and Plaintiff B was appointed as the public representative on November 19, 2013.

B. On January 16, 2014, from around 14:40 to 14:45, and from around 15:12 on January 27, 2014 to around 15:27, Plaintiff B visited Plaintiff A in each Navy prison, and Plaintiff B demanded an interview at an attorney-at-law meeting room that guarantees the confidentiality of meeting, but the interview was conducted at the place where the facilities to prevent contact are installed by the refusal of the South South South Prison.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute

2. The fact that the person in charge of the remaining prison in the plaintiffs' assertion of the plaintiffs allowed the plaintiffs to meet in the facilities to prevent contact and recorded the contents of the meeting is a violation of jurisdiction. Even if a prison officer did not record or record the meeting, so long as a prison officer peeps the contents of the meeting through a scacker, it infringes on the right to a trial, and the defendant shall compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the employer of such prison officer.

3. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge the assertion that a person in charge of the prison recorded the content of the meeting.

B. In the case of constitutional complaint against Article 58(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment Act (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ma122, Aug. 29, 2013), which is a basis provision for the instant act of restricting meeting with a facility to prevent contact, the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment Act declares that Article 58(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment Act violates the Constitution as it interferes with a lawyer’s right to a trial by hindering a lawyer from receiving efficient assistance from preparing a trial, and thus infringing upon the prisoner’s right to a trial. However, for legal stability, by issuing an improvement legislation until July 31, 2014, it indirectly ordered the act of visiting an attorney at the place where the facility to prevent contact is installed

However, the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality on the law is justified.