A. The parties concerned are the officers and employees of the "E" church located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the external third parties of the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff B is the male-gu of the plaintiff A and is living together with the plaintiff A.

B. The Defendant committed each of the crimes against the Plaintiffs, with the same content as the separate facts constituting the crime.

C. As a result of the criminal trial against the Defendant, the Defendant is against this Court No. 2018Gohap234.

It was prosecuted for violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Relatives) and for a false accusation, and denied the facts of the principal's crime, but the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the above facts of crime by using statements and video recordings in the court and investigation process as evidence, and sentenced the Defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 3 years and 40 hours.

Therefore, the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, but dismissed the appeal (Seoul High Court 2018No2333), and the Defendant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court 2019Do8936), and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of damages liability, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case against the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, the victim, suffered enormous mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiffs.

B. The scope of the liability for damages is to examine the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiffs, and ① the Defendant seeks to have sexual intercourse with the said Plaintiff by taking advantage of special personal trust relationship even though the Defendant was the external third village of Plaintiff A and the above Plaintiff was the pastor of the church accompanying the said Plaintiff, and then dismissed the Plaintiffs in order to avoid their liability.