A. Defendant D (2003) came to know of Plaintiff A (GG) through Internet games around 2019 and provided teaching services.

At the time, the defendant D knew that the plaintiff A was under 13 years of age as the sixth-year student of an elementary school.

B. Defendant D had sexual intercourse with Plaintiff A five times from January 22, 2019 to March 2019.

C. Defendant D had sexual intercourse with Plaintiff A under the age of 13 on January 29, 2020 and was subject to a protective disposition by the Suwon Family Court on taking lectures, community service, special education, and long-term probation.

Defendant E and H are the parents of Defendant I, and Plaintiff C and B are the parents of Plaintiff A.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As recognized earlier, Defendant D knew that Plaintiff A was a minor under the age of 13, and had a sexual intercourse with Plaintiff A with the awareness that he/she was a minor.

Plaintiff

A is 12 years old at the time of the instant case, and it is difficult to exercise the right to sexual self-determination in a genuine sense.

Defendant D’s act constitutes a tort that interferes with the free decision-making of Plaintiff A’s sexual self-determination and infringes upon Plaintiff A’s right to sexual self-determination and distorts Plaintiff A’s non-established sexual concept.

Plaintiff

Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff C and its parents suffered from mental suffering due to the illegal acts committed by defendant D, they are obligated to do so in money.

(However, as to the assertion that Defendant D had a sexual intercourse against the Plaintiff’s will, it is not sufficient to acknowledge such facts solely on the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 6, No. 7, No. 16-2, No. 17, and No. 9, and evidence No. 1, No. 15-1, No. 2, No. 16-2, No. 17, and No. 21-2, and No. 21-2.

In addition, Defendant E and F erred in the sexual defense of a minor child.