beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 204,318,800 to Plaintiff A; KRW 800,000,000 to Plaintiff B; and KRW 170,00,000 to Plaintiff C, D, E, and F, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 6, 1974, the plaintiff A was prosecuted on the charge of the violation of the National Security Act and the violation of the Antipublic Law, etc. on March 13, 1974. On March 13, 1974, on the charge of the violation of the National Security Act and the violation of the Antipublic Law, etc., the plaintiff A was prosecuted on the charge of the violation of the National Security Act and the violation of the warrant of detention against the above plaintiff on March 13, 1974. The above court found the defendant guilty on July 24, 1974, and sentenced the above plaintiff's life imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment subject to a retrial").
(2) The Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed, but the Seoul High Court dismissed all the appeal filed by the said Plaintiff and the Prosecutor on December 9, 1974 (Seoul High Court 74No1112). The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the appeal on April 8, 1975 (Supreme Court 75Do279) and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive (Supreme Court 75Do279). (2) The Plaintiff A was detained for about 17 years (6,201) after the first day of March 6, 1974 and the day of parole on February 25, 191 (6,201).
3) Plaintiff A was subject to security surveillance by February 1, 2002 after the parole. B) Plaintiff A filed a petition for review of the instant judgment subject to a retrial with the Seoul Central District Court 201 Inventory 2017 on February 8, 2011, and the said court rendered a decision of commencing a retrial on October 23, 2014.
2. On September 10, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts charged against Plaintiff A on the ground that: (a) the statement, etc. made by Plaintiff A to the investigation agency was made in the state of a arbitrative hearing due to a cruel act, such as an assault in the course of illegal confinement and investigation; and (b) the statement made to the effect that the confession of facts charged on the fourth trial date
Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed and appealed, but the prosecutor appealed.