1. Defendant C: (a) KRW 212,605,318; and (b) KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them, from November 1, 2013 to June 1, 2017.

(2) On November 1, 2013, by November 1, 2013, Plaintiff A recommended Plaintiff A to administer “Dhn Molly” (referring to the instant drug) along with a total of 54 text messages (hereinafter “instant text messages”); Plaintiff A sent a total of 54 text messages (hereinafter “instant text messages”); Plaintiff A informed Defendant C of its location on the grounds of the preparation of the task; and Plaintiff A did not have personal risk factors, such as brain health and family history or spathy, before the instant drug was administered.

B) The following circumstances were revealed in addition to the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments as to the establishment of tort liability by tricking and coercion and the entire purport of the arguments, i.e., (i) the circumstance to acknowledge that Defendant C had caused physical and mental harm to the Plaintiff A through the instant text message does not appear; (ii) the Defendant C expressed “f***kring pure” as to the instant text message (16:39 October 31, 2013), and “rereged Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dok” (26 November 1, 2013). However, in light of the context before and after the text of the instant text message, the meaning of the instant text message appears to be close to “the instant text message’s Dod 10 or Dod 18,” rather than “the risk of causing harm to the physical well-being of other psychotropic drugs,” and there is no further evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff C’s 14 or Do 15’s Ma Do 10101.