A. Plaintiff A and Defendant D were parents attending the same school. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D.

B. After the completion of the foregoing school festival on October 18, 2012, Defendant D (former 3) was charged with committing a crime that, from around 20:00 to around 200, Defendant D, while drinking alcohol with H, I, J, K, K, L, and Plaintiff A, the same grade-friendly group of the same school in the Gu-U.S. G apartment, and carried out a “Wang Game” together with Defendant D, I, J, K, L, and Plaintiff A while drinking alcohol, Defendant D (former 3) was guilty of quasi-rapeing the Plaintiff A, who was under the influence of alcohol with a dumnasium of the above Y.

(No. 2013 Gohap146).

Defendant D denied the above criminal facts on September 5, 2014 on the grounds that: (a) Defendant D had a sexual intercourse under the agreement with Plaintiff A; (b) on the ground that the aforementioned court’s examination of the evidence, including the examination of the witness on both sides, conducted a conviction on the ground that it was inevitable to render a sentence of conviction on the grounds that it was not possible to take any measures for recovery from damage; but (c) Defendant D, as a student under the age of Defendant D, has not been able to take any active effort by Defendant E and F, the guardian.

(Defendant E: (A) Defendant D received a disposition of juvenile reformatory for six months from the juvenile reformatory in the juvenile department to which it was forwarded (based on recognition); (b) there is no dispute; (c) evidence No. 4 (written judgment); and (d) purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination, although Defendant D was a minor at the time of the above crime, he was a tort, it shall be deemed that the age of Defendant D was 15 years of age, and there was an intelligence to change his responsibility for such act. Defendant E and F shall be deemed to have committed the above tort due to negligence, although Defendant E and F were the parents raising Defendant D, who were in custody of Defendant D, and were negligent in supervising Defendant D, even though they were not obligated to do so. Thus, Defendants shall be jointly liable for the Plaintiff B and C’s mental suffering.

The Defendants, even in this case, are sexual intercourses under the agreement with the Plaintiff.