1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5.5 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from February 25, 2015 to July 16, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant was indicted on the following facts: (a) upon intrusion upon the Plaintiff’s house on June 12, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months in the Gwangju District Court for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Indecent Act) and three years in grace period (2014Dahap472), and the said judgment became final and conclusive: (b) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months in the Gwangju District Court for a stay of execution (2014Dahap472).

(B) The above criminal facts are “the instant harmful act.”

The Plaintiff, due to the instant harmful act, received mental treatment in the Joseon University Hospital on November 29, 2014 and January 21, 2015 on two occasions.

C. In order to obtain assistance from a lawyer in relation to the harmful act of this case, the Plaintiff appointed C Attorney-at-law as a complainant, and paid 2.5 million won at the cost.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 5-1 to 5-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Even if a civil trial on the defendant's obligation to pay consolation money is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that the criminal judgment which was affirmed was found guilty of the same facts is material evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial unless it is acknowledged that

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997, 2007Da69148, 69155 delivered on February 14, 2008, etc.). Examining the facts recognized as above in light of the above legal principles, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the instant harmful act.

Therefore, the defendant has the duty to honor to the plaintiff.

On the other hand.