In a case where Gap et al. released after confinement in a correctional institution, such as a detention house, was tightly confined in a mixed ward and suffered mental and physical pain, and sought compensation for consolation money against the State, the case holding that the State has a duty to compensate for mental damage suffered during the period of excessive confinement where Gap et al. had to use a space for one person who does not exceed 2 square meters.

In a case where Gap et al. released after confinement in a correctional institution, such as a detention house, claimed that he suffered mental or physical pain and sought consolation money against the State, the case holding that if the area of confinement room per person is too narrow enough to make it difficult to lead a life due to his basic needs as human beings, it should be viewed as infringing upon human dignity and value guaranteed by the Constitution beyond the limit of exercise of State punishment, and where the area of confinement room per person per person per sex Gap et al. is less than 2 square meters, it is reasonable to deem that the confinement room per person per person per sex is unlawful during the pertinent period beyond the limit of admission, on the grounds that Gap et al. suffered from mental or physical harm due to the excessive confinement period, which had to use a space of not more than 2 square meters per person per person during the pertinent period of confinement, and it seems that Gap et al. experienced serious pain, such as physical or mental health aggravation, or deprivation of conditions necessary for basic activities as a personality body, and that the State has an obligation to compensate for mental harm beyond the limit of admission.

Articles 10 and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act; Article 1 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act; Article 2 subparag. 1, subparag. 2, and subparag. 3, Articles 4, 13, 14, 15, 55, and 59(1) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act; Articles 8 and 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Yoon Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Lee Jin-in, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 201Da13633 Decided February 20, 2014

June 22, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 1,50,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from July 19, 201 to August 31, 2017, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 90% shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and 10% by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 20 million won, 30 million won to the plaintiff 2, and 30 million won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment (the plaintiffs' claim is reduced according to the purport of appeal).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Confinement of plaintiffs 1 in correctional institutions

1) On February 21, 2008, Plaintiff 1 was detained under suspicion of fraud, and was detained in Busan detention center and sentenced to two years of imprisonment at the first instance court on June 3, 2008, but was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution at the appellate court on September 4, 2008, and was released from the above detention center on the same day.

2) During the above confinement period, Plaintiff 1 was admitted to a small and medium ward, the area of which is 8.64 square meters in the drawings in Busan detention center (attached Form 1), as recorded in the list of confinement status, with other prisoners. During the above confinement period, the space per person for each prisoner calculated by dividing the area according to the drawings of the above small and medium ward by the number of prisoners is 1.4 m2.16 m2.

B. Confinement of plaintiffs 2 in correctional institutions

1) On January 20, 201, Plaintiff 2 was detained on suspicion of fraud, etc., and was detained in Busan detention center, etc., and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment at the first instance trial on July 8, 201, and was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment at the appellate trial on October 26, 2011, and the judgment of the said appellate court became final and conclusive as is. The said Plaintiff completed the execution of the sentence at the first prison of North Korea, and was released from the same prison on September 20, 2012. In addition, the said Plaintiff had criminal records more than 40 times other than this Plaintiff, and was detained in the correctional institution as indicated in the table after February 2, 2005.

On February 24, 2005 from February 16, 2005 to August 16, 2005, the period of imprisonment with prison labor of the Busan Detention Center from May 12, 2006 to October 8, 2006 from May 3, 2006 to May 2, 2007, the period of imprisonment with prison labor of the Busan Detention Center from May 2, 2006 to May 2, 199, the period of imprisonment with prison labor of the 1.3rd on May 2, 2007 to 1.3rd on November 17, 2007, the period of imprisonment with prison labor of the Busan Detention Center from May 2, 2007 to 1.3rd on November 17, 2007; the period of imprisonment with prison labor of the Busan Detention House from June 19 to December 17, 2008 to 1.6th on May 21, 2008.

2) During the period from June 19, 2008 to July 12, 2011, Plaintiff 2 was accommodated in the Busan detention house and the Busan correctional institution (attached Form 1) in the confinement room as shown in the current status table (attached Form 1). The space per person per inmate, calculated by dividing the area in the drawing of the confinement room that the said Plaintiff had been admitted into the confinement room by the number of prisoners during the aforementioned confinement period, is 1.23 square meters to 3.81 square meters (excluding cases where the said Plaintiff was admitted to less than three persons for a temporary period of less than five days).

C. Size and environment of the confinement room for which the plaintiffs were admitted

1) The area of the room of small and medium enterprises in Busan detention center, the plaintiffs of which was admitted, is 8.64 square meters or more on the map, and in fact, [Attachment 2] 2,130mm or more from 2,130mm to 2,140mm, vertical length is 3,270mm, 6.9m or more (=2,140mm x 3,270mm x 3,270mm, small and medium groups hereinafter the same shall apply). Here, if the area of the room of Busan detention center is excluded from 70m or vertical length is 0m or 460m or more, the actual available area is 6.67m or more (6.9-9 - 0.32m or more). The above room is a window (730m or vertical length is 970m or more, 970m or 10m, or 20m or more).

2) The actual area of the room for disciplinary action in the Busan detention center, where Plaintiff 2 had been accommodated, is 4.12 square meters or more on the map, and the actual area of the room for disciplinary action in the Busan detention center (attached Form 2) is 3.16 square meters or more at the width of 1,050mm and 3,010mm in length (2,830mm in case of excluding the local area) as indicated in the actual numerical value of the 14th floor in Busan detention center (attached Form 2). The room for the above confinement has a toilet (1,060mm in length, 1,030mm in length, 1,030mm in length) separately, and a toilet is installed on the toilet wall.

3) Small and medium wards of port correctional institutions in which Plaintiff 2 is located, shall be 12.16 square meters in the measured area of the room by 2,890mm in width, 4,210mm in height (2,400mm in toilet), such as 6-dong 1st, 6-dong, an air-going correctional institution (attached Form 2). The measured area of the room is 12.16mm in height. The space of the room is 1,210mm in width, 1,200mm in length, 1,200mm in length, 1,40mm in width, 1,300mm in length, 1,00mm in length, 1,00mm in length, 20mm in width, 1,67mm in length, 20mm in width, 26mm in width in width, 160mm in width and 16mm in width in width (attached Form 6.2mm in width).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 12, the first instance court's result of on-site inspection of Busan detention center and port prison, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Under the Constitution, the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”), guidelines on confinement, classification of confinement, transfer, recording, etc., the Defendant is obligated to maintain confinement facilities at a level that can maintain the human dignity and health of prisoners in correctional institutions, such as securing at least 2.58 square meters of space per person for inmates in correctional institutions.

B. However, the Defendant: (a) admitted Plaintiff 1 to a mixed ward with a space of 1.4-2.16 square meters for each person; and (b) committed a violation of the above duty by neglecting the Plaintiffs’ medical treatment and treatment by neglecting to the extent that mental or physical illness is likely to occur due to psychological pressure, tension, anxiety, etc., as the space for each person from June 19, 2008 to June 19, 2008, or by accepting the same in a mixed ward with a space of 1.25-2.54 square meters per person only, or in a disciplinary room or a protocol with a space of 1.25-2.54 square meters per person.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot be protected by private life, and they must suffer from mental or physical suffering, such as not securing sufficient accommodation space, and in particular, Plaintiff 2 caused and expanded symptoms of sule disorder. This constitutes an act in violation of the Constitution and relevant statutes, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 20 million to Plaintiff 1, and KRW 30,000,000 to Plaintiff 2, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

3. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 3] The entry is as follows.

4. Determination

A. Whether liability for damages was incurred due to excessive confinement

(i) the legal basis and criteria for accommodation;

"A prisoner" under the Criminal Procedure Act means a person confined in a correctional institution, a detention house or its branch, i.e., a person confined in a correctional institution, in accordance with legal procedures, such as an convicted prisoner, unconvicted prisoner, or an inmate on death row inmate (Article 2 subparag. 1). Among them, the term "convicted prisoner" refers to a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant, who is arrested as a criminal defendant, or who is detained in a correctional institution upon the execution of a detention warrant (Article 2 subparag. 2) due to a final and conclusive sentence of imprisonment, imprisonment without prison labor, or penal detention, and who fails to fully pay a fine or a minor fine (Article 2 subparag. 3).

With respect to the confinement of prisoners, the Act on the Execution of Punishment, etc. provides, “A prisoner may be placed in solitary confinement in solitary confinement in any of the following cases: 1. When conditions of the relevant facility are not adequate, such as lack of solitary wards, etc.; 2. When it is necessary for the protection of the life or body of prisoners and their emotional stability; 3. When it is necessary for the edification or sound rehabilitation into society; 3.” In addition, male and female prisoners shall be confined separately (Article 13(1)), and prisoners and unconvicted prisoners, and convicted prisoners 19 years of age or older and under 19 years of age shall be confined separately (Article 13(2)), and prisoners shall be designated as wards in consideration of the name of crime, punishment, nature of crimes, character, criminal records, criminal records, age, career, attitude of prison life, and other personal characteristics of prisoners (Article 15).

In addition, the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the number of persons under mixed confinement shall, in principle, be at least three persons, and the prisoners who are ordered to be confined in a workhouse shall, in principle, be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, imprisonment without prison labor, or penal detention, not mixed confinement with the prisoners on whom punishment has become final and conclusive (Articles 8 and 9).

2) Issues of excessive confinement

(A) difficulties in re-socializing;

Today, the ultimate purpose of correction is re-socialization (re-socialization) that allows a criminal to observe the law and return to the society as a general citizen. In this case, re-socialization includes positive meaning that a prisoner can lead a normal social life without committing any crime after being released from prison. On the other hand, the enactment purpose of the Criminal Execution Act, which stipulates necessary matters concerning treatment and rights of prisoners and the operation of a correctional institution, is to promote correction and edification of prisoners and their sound rehabilitation into society (Article 1), provides that the principle of treatment of prisoners is to promote correction and edification of prisoners through education and edification programs, work, vocational training, etc. (Article 55), and that the final purpose of correction is to confirm that the final purpose of correction is re-socialization of prisoners.

In order to achieve the goal of re-socialization, it is necessary to have adequate environment and conditions that are appropriate for it.However, if the number of inmates exceeding the appropriate number is confined to the correctional institution, it is not equipped with the proper environment and conditions for correction and edification, thereby adversely affecting the maintenance of order of the correctional institution and lowering the correctional capacity, and ultimately undermining the re-socialization of prisoners which is the final objective of correction.

(b) difficulties in classifying and individual treatment;

Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a convicted prisoner shall be treated so as to promote correction and edification through educational and corrective programs, work, and vocational training, and to cultivate his/her ability to adapt to the social life." The main sentence of Article 59(1) provides that "the warden shall investigate, measure, and evaluate the personality, behavior characteristics, quality, etc. of the convicted prisoner in a scientific manner in order to establish and adjust an individual treatment plan for the convicted prisoner reasonably." However, an excessive confinement is likely to cause the treatment, counseling, and lack of human resources to provide administrative support to the convicted prisoner in a formal manner, and ultimately, it is highly likely that the classification of the convicted prisoner will be conducted focused on passive confinement rather than active efforts to re-socialize.

C) the aggravation of the accommodation environment;

The lack of space due to the excessive confinement brings about the reduction of space to realize a series of re-socialization programs for prisoners' rehabilitation into society. If the correctional institution is in an excessive situation beyond the adequate number of inmates, the lack of treatment is not properly resolved, and the psychological conflict and physical conflict with the prisoners who are frequently replaced and entered into the training space that each prisoner becomes narrow may occur frequently.

3) Whether the plaintiffs' fundamental rights due to the excessive confinement were infringed

A) Relevant legal principles

(1) The dignity and value of human beings requires respect for all human beings as their own purpose and do not permit them to be treated as simple means for other purposes. In particular, the exercise of the State’s penal authority is intended to protect human dignity and value by maintaining community order, but at the same time may threaten the dignity and value of human beings, suspects, defendants, and prisoners who are subject to criminal punishment at the same time. In exercising the State’s penal authority, human dignity and value requires that the State treat suspects, defendants, and prisoners as other persons with dignity and value. Therefore, human dignity and value is prohibited from treating those persons as mere objects of State action or imposing inhuman punishment at a facility deprived of the basic conditions of human survival in criminal administration. In particular, in the event of convicted prisoners, the State’s exercise of penal authority is intended to protect human dignity and value by maintaining community order, but at the same time, may threaten human dignity and value as other persons. In the event of exercising the State’s penal authority, it is not necessary to limit the dignity and value of human beings within 2016 Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2016.

(2) Meanwhile, a public official’s harmful act in state liability should be “violation of the Act and subordinate statutes” and “violation of the Act and subordinate statutes” means not only a violation of a strict meaning but also a violation of human rights, such as respect of human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, good faith and good faith, and respect for public order and good morals, lack objective legitimacy (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da70180, Dec. 24, 2009). Therefore, if the Defendant infringed on the fundamental human rights of a public official by excessively accommodating prisoners in a narrow space beyond an appropriate level of confinement without objective justification, it may be recognized as a violation of the Act and subordinate statutes for which State liability is recognized.

B) Whether a person is obliged to secure a ward with a capacity of at least 2.58 square meters per person

(1) The Act on the Execution of Punishment and the Criminal Administration Act, which provides for matters necessary for the treatment and rights of prisoners and the operation of a correctional institution, does not provide for the minimum accommodation area to be secured by the prisoners of the correctional institution. However, the “Rules on the Standards for Legal Facilities (amended by the Ministry of Justice Directive No. 848, Dec. 29, 201)” under Article 3(3) and [Attachment Table 1] provides that in the case of a mixed ward, the accommodation area per prisoner shall be 2.58 square meters, and Article 82(1)2 of the “Guideline on the Classification, Transfer Records, etc. of Confinement” provides that the fixed number of accommodation areas of a mixed ward shall be 2.58 square meters per 58 square meters per 2.58 square meters per 58 square meter.

(2) The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant should secure a space of at least 2.58 square meters per person for prisoners in mixed wards in accordance with the provisions of the established rules of the Ministry of Justice. However, the standard rules of legal facilities set forth the facility standards at the time of the construction and extension of facilities such as detention houses, and the guidelines on classification of expropriation, transfer and recording, etc. are only effective within the administrative organization, and do not have external binding force. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the defendant has a legal obligation to secure the accommodation area of at least 2.58 square meters per inmate on the basis of the above established rules of the Ministry of Justice, and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is without merit.

C) Criteria for determining the infringement of fundamental rights due to excessive confinement

(1) In determining whether a prisoner’s fundamental right has been infringed upon upon being confined in a correctional institution where the basic conditions of human life have been deprived, the determination should take into account not only the area of the confinement room per person, but also the overall operational conditions of the confinement facility, such as the current status of the confinement room, and the living conditions of the prisoner, the confinement period, whether meeting and physical exercise and other convenience are provided, expenses incurred in the confinement, and the problem of the budget of the State. However, since the prisoner is engaged in basic daily life, such as intrusion and use in the confinement room among the correctional facilities, securing the minimum space of the confinement room that can lead a human life is the basic condition for achieving re-socialization, which is the final objective of correction. Therefore, even if other criteria such as workplace, restaurant, securing physical time, allowing meeting and communication are satisfied, if the area of confinement room per person is too narrow enough to make it difficult for a person to enjoy life due to his/her basic needs as human beings, it should also be viewed as infringing upon human dignity and value that has already exceeded the limit of exercise of the State punishment.

(2) Furthermore, in a case where the area of confinement room per person falls short of a certain minimum standard and thereby causes damage to the confined prisoner who cannot join the confinement room under the social norms, that is, whether the area exceeds the acceptable limit, it shall be individually determined on a case-by-case basis based on specific circumstances, comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as physical conditions of the prisoner, living habits, structure of confinement room, and budget necessary for expanding the correctional facility and confinement room. However, in the case of the plaintiffs who are adults, it is reasonable to view that the act of confinement during the pertinent period exceeds the acceptable limit if the area of confinement room per person is less

① Under Article 3(3) and [Attachment 1] of the “Rules on the Standards for Legal Facilities” as seen earlier, in the case of a mixed ward, the area of accommodation per inmate shall be 2.58 square meters. Such content appears to have been confirmed by the “Rules on the Standards for Legal Facilities of the Ministry of Justice” (amended by the Directive No. 475 of December 30, 2002). In addition, Article 82(1)2 of the “Guideline on Classification of Confinement, Transfer Records, etc.” also provides that the criteria for calculating the fixed number of accommodation of a mixed ward shall be 2.58 square meters per 2.5 square meters per person, even if the said provisions do not connect the said provisions to the obligation to secure the area of accommodation of a mixed ward, it may be a reference for determining the minimum area of accommodation room per person who exceeds the permissible limit of admission.

② The average height of men in Korea is before and after 174 cm (the 6th implementation of the National Technical Standard Institute in 2010, the result of the measurement of human body, which is the 6th implementation of the National Technical Standard Institute in 2010), and the size of the scambling cams generally sold in the city is about 1,00mm in width, length 2,00mm in length. In light of this, the space of at least 2 square meters per capita, in particular, the space of at least 1m wide in width in the direction of leakage, should be secured, but the space of at least 1m wide in width should be secured with other prisoners and can be locked well.

③ In relation to the case of foreign countries, the case held that “The European Commission for the Prevention of Advisor and Non-humanistic Treatment or Punishment” (the European Commission for Human Rights) presented the minimum accommodation area per person in the case of a mixed confinement room as four square meters, and that the European Court of Human Rights has determined that the acceptance area per person would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of Definite Treatment) (the prohibition of Definite Treatment) if the acceptance area per person is 2.7 square meters or more in the confinement facility for several months (Mic and Jovic v. Slvia; Struva and Os v. Slv. Slovia; Slovia; 574/106/5985/10, and 2010/O2010).

D) Illegality of the act of excessive confinement against the plaintiffs

(1) We examine the illegality of the act of excessive confinement against the plaintiffs in accordance with the foregoing criteria. The actual area of the room in Busan detention center is 6.9 square meters. The actual area of the room in Busan detention center is 3.16 square meters. The actual area of the room in Busan detention center is 1.44 square meters or 2.16 square meters for each prisoner, calculated by dividing the area by the number of inmates according to the drawings of the small and medium wards in Busan detention center, where the plaintiff 1 was admitted, and the space per person who calculated by dividing the area according to the drawings of the Busan detention center and the small and medium wards in Busan detention center by the number of inmates is 1.23 square meters or 3.81 square meters for each person. The period of confinement in the room in which the plaintiff 2 was admitted is less than 2 square meters per person as described in attached Form 1 [1], and the period of confinement in the case of the plaintiff 1 is 186 days or 323 days for each person (the plaintiff 2's expropriation period should be referred to "the period of this case".

(2) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs experienced serious pain, such as aggravation of physical and mental health or deprivation of conditions necessary for basic activities as a personality body, in a ward where the minimum space is not secured for the basic life of human beings during the period of excessive confinement. In other words, the defendant's excessive confinement of this case constitutes an exercise of public authority which infringes upon the dignity and value of human beings beyond the Plaintiffs' tolerance limit and it is difficult to recognize objective legitimacy.

E) Whether it is inevitable to recognize the need for national budget and others

(1) Since the number of prisoners in a correctional institution changes depending on social situation, increase or decrease of crime, etc., it is difficult for the State to predict in advance and to arbitrarily limit the number of prisoners to a certain level, and from the standpoint of a correctional institution, it is not possible for a correctional institution to refuse the confinement of prisoners additionally admitted to secure a sufficient living space for the existing prisoners. In addition, in light of the fact that substantial national budget is required in constructing a correctional institution and that there is difficulty in selecting a new correctional institution due to the so-called NIMY phenomenon, it is difficult to flexibly cope with the increased or decreased number of prisoners, such as constructing a new correctional institution at that time.

(2) However, such social and economic circumstances alone cannot serve as a reason to justify the suffering of prisoners who are deprived of the conditions necessary for their basic activities as a personality body in a living room where the minimum space is not secured on the basic living basis. Therefore, the defendant has a duty to reduce the suffering of prisoners by taking measures such as constructing a new correctional facility corresponding to the increase in the number of inmates and remodelling other spaces such as the office, warehouse, work space, etc. into a confinement room. For example, the total size of the building in the Busan detention center is 27,291.98 square meters, among which the building area in the Busan detention center is 20,983.57 square meters, the size of the building area outside the fixed door is 6,308.41 square meters, and among them, the area of the accommodation space is 10,685.48 square meters, and the area of the accommodation space is 10,000 square meters, and the defendant cannot be found to have taken measures as the defendant's temporary confinement space by securing human dignity and the size of the storage room.

(3) In addition, in the case of unconvicted prisoners, even if the place of confinement is insufficient for convenience in court attendance, the infringement of fundamental rights due to the smuggling cannot be justified solely on the ground that the Defendant is in custody, such as the detention in a nearby detention facility in a large city.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the defendant's excessive confinement of this case constitutes an exercise of public authority that infringes upon the dignity and value of human beings beyond the plaintiffs' tolerance limit and it is objectively difficult to recognize its legitimacy. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs.

B. Regarding the plaintiffs' other arguments

1) Whether the inmate was faced with such problems as heating, cooling, lighting, ventilation, and toilet sanitation in the ward.

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs suffered suffering from heating, cooling, lighting, ventilation, hygiene problems of toilets, etc. in the confinement ward.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection of evidence Nos. 9 and 10, evidence Nos. 4 and 5, each video of the first instance court, Busan detention center of the first instance court, and port detention center of the port, and the whole purport of the pleadings, ① Busan prison and Busan detention center shall install and operate a wind flag in the summer, pay debts, permit air conditioners to wear air conditioners, and provide ices and ices, and take measures to address the higher level of inmates, and maintain indoor temperature of 18 to 19 degrees through heating even in the winter, ② install windows or chills for lighting or ventilation, ③ install toilets separate from the room, and recognize the fact that the toilet was installed.

According to the above facts, even though the degree of heating, cooling, lighting, and ventilation or the sanitary condition of toilets is somewhat insufficient in the correctional facilities to which the plaintiffs were admitted, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' fundamental rights have been infringed beyond the acceptance limit. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the treatment and treatment of the plaintiffs have been neglected

A confined person confined in a confinement facility of a correctional institution, etc. may not leave the facility from his/her own will and is deprived of his/her freedom of conduct. As such, the manager of the relevant facility is obligated to ensure the safety of the inmate's life and body. The content and degree of the duty to ensure the safety of the inmate's body and mental condition, physical and human conditions of the facility, time and place circumstances, etc. must be determined in detail on the basis of the case without any intention (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75768, Jan. 28, 2010).

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the correctional officers belonging to the defendant neglected the plaintiffs' request for medical treatment.

Rather, considering the overall purport of the argument of the Nonparty as a result of the first instance appraiser’s appraisal of evidence Nos. 5-2 through 12, evidence Nos. 606 through 632, evidence Nos. 9-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 10-1 through 6, and evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of the first instance court’s appraiser’s appraisal, Plaintiff 2 is subject to appropriate drug treatment when the Nonparty complaining of symptoms, and it is recognized that Plaintiff 2 received ordinary and appropriate treatment such as receiving out-of-the-counter medical care from the hospital including hospital (title 1 omitted), and therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part

3) Whether an excessive confinement caused a yellow disorder to Plaintiff 2

A) Whether there was a yellow disorder caused by over-populated confinement

In full view of the evidence No. 5-9, 11-2, the Nonparty’s appraisal result of the first instance court’s appraiser, the president of the National Health Insurance Corporation of the first instance court, and the purport of the entire argument as to the medical treatment and custody director, the following facts are revealed: (a) Plaintiff 2 was diagnosed as a sulfur disorder and alcohol addict at the hospital on July 20, 2007 (title 2 omitted), which was in the process of receiving the examination from the hospital on September 17, 2007 (title 1 omitted); and (b) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a sulfur disorder (e) before receiving the examination as above.

On the other hand, the risk factors that may cause a sulfur disorder are generally known as a common risk factors, such as various kinds of factors, but rather, women, low social and economic classes, toxic or divorced status, age from 18 to 45 years of age, external brain damage, excessive emotional response to the suppression of action or stress at the times of festing, respiratory disease in the times of fest, starting at the drinking, and smoking age, and smoking a large amount of tobacco. In addition, other than environmental factors, the factors that may affect the outbreak and progress of a sulfur disorder are diverse, including alcohol dependence, and these factors include coexistence disease including alcohol dependence, individual character characteristics, response technology, etc. And alcohol addiction often includes unstable disorder and disease, including alcohol disorder, and it is known that 25 to 250% of alcohol-based patients have an unstable disorder, among these factors, and that fluenite disorder is the highest.

Furthermore, considering the overall purport of the arguments by the non-party 1-3, 6, 7, and 8 evidence No. 10-2 and the non-party 2's appraisal, the above plaintiff is deemed to have been hospitalized for 5 years from 10 years to 2006 (name 3 omitted) medical treatment and treatment at hospital (including address 1 omitted). The above plaintiff is deemed to have been hospitalized for 1-2 years from 10 years to 3 years from 1-2's identification of mental disorder; 3. The above plaintiff is deemed to have been diagnosed for 1-6 years from 2's identification of mental disorder; 4. The above plaintiff is deemed to have been diagnosed for 1-2's identification of mental disorder; 4. The above plaintiff is deemed to have been diagnosed for 5 years from 2's identification of mental disorder; 4. The above plaintiff is deemed to have been diagnosed for 4 years from 10 years from 2's identification of mental disorder; and 5.'s identification of alcohol disorder.

In light of these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone caused a yellow disorder to Plaintiff 2 due to the excessive confinement of the correctional institution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiff was suffering from a yellow disorder before being confined in the correctional institution, and that the above plaintiff was aware of it. Accordingly, this part of the argument by Plaintiff 2 is without merit.

B) Whether sulfur disorder caused by overpopulated confinement has deteriorated

Although there is no direct basis for what impact the symptoms and progress of the anti-competitive disorder affects, it is known that in some persons, the over-cover confinement in the confinement facility worsens the mental disorder, the environment itself increases suicide rate and aggravated the existing mental disorder. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the anti-competitive disorder of plaintiff 2 was aggravated after the confinement in the correctional facility, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

In addition, even if the above plaintiff's sulfur disorder has deteriorated due to over-cover confinement, as seen earlier, the defendant is deemed to have taken appropriate treatment measures, so it is difficult to recognize any negligence on the part of the defendant.

Therefore, the above plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Scope of liability for damages

The plaintiffs were confined in the correctional facility of this case, the period of confinement of this case ( plaintiffs 1186 days, 23 days, 203 days), and plaintiff 2's suffering from public disorder during the period of confinement of this case, which seems to have increased suffering during the period of confinement of this case. Meanwhile, the defendant made a considerable effort to improve the correctional environment by establishing and implementing a new plan for the correctional facility, and actually achieved the same result as the increase in the living room area and the decrease in the average number of accommodation per day. Considering the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the government's economic scale and budget, consolation money for plaintiff 1 shall be determined at KRW 1,50,000, and consolation money for plaintiff 2 shall be determined at KRW 3,00,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) from July 19, 2011 to August 31, 2017, which is the date when the defendant raised a dispute over the existence and scope of his/her obligation, as compensation for delay after the act of excessive expropriation of the plaintiff 1,50,000, and each of the above money was committed against the plaintiff 2.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, part of the plaintiffs' appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the plaintiffs who ordered the above payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount,

[Attachment 1] List of the Status of Expropriation: Omitted

[Attachment 2] Survey Number: omitted

[Attachment 3] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Yoon Jin-he et al. (Presiding Judge)