Defendant G is KRW 3,00,000, KRW 8,030,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,000,000 to Plaintiff C and each said money.

A. Defendant H is the president of K kindergarten in the Sungnam-siJ (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”), Defendant G is the “L Ban” teacher of the instant kindergarten, and Defendant I is the president of the instant kindergarten.

B. Plaintiff A and Plaintiff D are children who received education from Defendant G in the instant kindergarten L team, and Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff E, and Plaintiff F are parents of the said children.

C. Defendant G was charged with habitually committing child abuse against various members of the instant kindergarten MM group, as well as charges of committing physical abuse that may injure the body or injure the health and development of the body as described in the following table, or of emotional abuse that may injure their mental health and development.

A ND O L L

D. In Suwon District Court case of violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual Child Abuse), the court found Defendant G guilty of the Defendant’s emotional abuse crime listed in the above table No. 28 against the Plaintiff’s above table No. 29 and 30 of the facts charged against the Defendant, while the court acquitted the Plaintiff on the ground that “each of the above acts constitutes an abuse or with the intent of abuse,” with respect to each emotional and physical abuse listed in the above table No. 29 and 30 against Plaintiff D’s emotional and/or physical abuse, it cannot be readily concluded that the above act constitutes an abuse, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise,” and the prosecution modified the indictment against Plaintiff A with respect to the crime described in the above table No. 27 against the Plaintiff.

E. Defendant G was sentenced by the above court on February 2, 2017 to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and suspended sentence for 2 years with respect to the remaining convictions except for those who received a partial verdict of innocence in the above case.

Notwithstanding both appeals and prosecutor appeals, the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2017.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, including Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, below.