1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders additional payment.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant sent sexual intercourse pictures, etc. to the plaintiff Gap and his family members who were married with the plaintiff Eul, and sent malicious text messages containing the contents of sexual intercourses to the plaintiffs and their family members on 276 occasions or sent them. The defendant's above, (1), (2), (3), and (4) acts in each of the above subparagraphs are found guilty in criminal trial, regardless of whether they were convicted of the facts, causing the plaintiff Eul's sexual humiliation and infringing the plaintiff Eul's privacy beyond the tolerance limit under the ordinary social norms, and thereby causing serious mental distress to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for mental distress suffered by the plaintiffs.

B. Furthermore, the scope of the liability for damages and the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Defendant shall be determined as consolation money for the Plaintiff A, in full view of the following factors: (a) the motive, duration, frequency, details, and circumstances before and after the tort shown in the records; and (b) KRW 5 million as consolation money for the Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, as to the plaintiff A's KRW 5 million, KRW 10 million for the plaintiff B, and KRW 3 million for the plaintiff A as cited in the first instance court among them, and KRW 7 million for the plaintiff B, the defendant is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 16, 2016, the following day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant, until September 20, 2016, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation.