1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 10,00,000, and KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff B, and each of the said money from December 11, 2013 to December 2015.

Facts of recognition

Plaintiff

A is a minor in March 200, and the plaintiff B is the plaintiff's reference.

Plaintiff

A published a letter containing age, area of residence, Kakakao Adi, etc. on August 25, 2013, stating that he/she found her friendship on the Korean Kakaf, and exchanged conversations with the Defendant through the Defendant on August 26, 2013, and the following day on August 26, 2013.

On August 26, 2013, around 17:30 on August 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sent the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s apartment rooftop; (b) stamped the stuff in the space front of the rooftop; and (c) stamped the upper half-yearly photograph of the Plaintiff A, who was off his clothes, and had a sexual relation with the Plaintiff A.

On October 5, 2013, the defendant sent letters to the plaintiff A that he/she would distribute the plaintiff's upper half of his/her body pictures without giving answers. On December 10, 2013, around 22:55 on December 10, 2013, the defendant sent letters to the plaintiff's upper half of his/her body pictures and threatened the plaintiff A three times without giving answers.

On June 19, 2014, the Defendant was prosecuted for the crime of intimidation, and was sentenced to six months in prison by this Court 2014No426, and was sentenced to three years in combination with other cases at the appellate court, and became final and conclusive upon being sentenced to three years in prison.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above fact of recognition of tort damages liability due to intimidation of the whole purport of arguments, the plaintiff Gap suffered serious mental suffering due to the defendant's above intimidation, and the plaintiff Eul, a plaintiff Eul's reference, suffered mental suffering is obvious in light of the empirical rule, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to accept money against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were raped by the plaintiff, and even if they were raped, the plaintiff was liable for damages due to rape or violation of the right to sexual self-determination.