1. The Defendant’s KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from April 18, 2017 to December 12, 2017.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant did not agree with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff with “a sexual intercourse, which was early at the time of death,” thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s personal rights and honor, or committed tort against the Plaintiff’s parents, the Plaintiff’s male-child offering C, and the Plaintiff’s workplace employees.

Accordingly, the consolation money for the plaintiff's mental damage is claimed.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence and the purport of the argument submitted by the Plaintiff, although the Plaintiff was in a relationship with the Defendant, the Defendant sent text messages to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s male-child relationship around January 22, 2017 and around February 23, 2017, to the effect that the Defendant would produce sexually dynamics to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s male-child relationship. It is recognized that the Defendant mentioned that he was sexually dynamics to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members on several occasions on February 2017.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's act was illegal as an act that damages the plaintiff's personality rights and honor and causes a sense of shame, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

The consolation money shall be determined as KRW 8 million in consideration of the relevant circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the type, frequency, duration of the tort in this case, the degree of damage (it seems that the video has not been distributed actually), the Plaintiff’s occupation and health status, etc.

B. On January 24, 2017 and on January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff found the Plaintiff’s parent’s house and had the Plaintiff’s parent’s sexual intercourse image with his/her father.

Even around February 11, 2017, it is argued to the effect that intimidation was made by threatening to spread around the world, and that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s male-friendly C had custody of sexual intercourse images, but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize this part.