1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against plaintiffs A and B, which corresponds to the money ordered to be paid below, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The plaintiffs claim for consolation money unique to the plaintiffs from 10th 6 to 11th 9th 5th 10th 10th 6th 6th 9th 5th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 11th 5th 6th 5th 6th 1). The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs have a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for consolation money as to their own mental losses, since they suffered mental distress due to the illegal act in the process

B) Each description of A, A, 1, 3, 8, and 10 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

According to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, it is recognized that the Plaintiff A was in de facto marital relationship with the Deceased on June 21, 1961, and the Plaintiff B was born between the Deceased and the Plaintiff and formed a family relationship. If so, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff A and B were suffering from mental suffering as the deceased’s family member in the course of illegal arrest and detention of the Deceased and criminal punishment. However, according to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Plaintiff C was born respectively and was born on December 16, 1963 and was born by the deceased on and after the release of the Deceased, and it cannot be deemed that the above Plaintiffs, who formed a family relationship after the release of the Deceased, were born as a family member during the process of illegal arrest and detention of the Deceased and criminal punishment of the Deceased.