1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15 million to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 4 million to Plaintiff B; and (c) from April 4, 2017 to October 16, 2018, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party A is an oriental medical doctor who operates Daehan, and the plaintiff B is the spouse of the plaintiff A.

The defendant is an operator of Ecarf's 'F' (G) who performs the sharing of information on eight physical medicine and related oriental medical science.

B. From August 26, 2014 to February 27, 2016, the Defendant was convicted of a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (hereinafter “Act on Promotion, etc.”) (this Court Decision 2015Da327) by committing the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (hereinafter “Act on Promotion, etc. of Defamation”). The Defendant appealed against the above judgment, but was sentenced to dismissal by the appellate court on December 22, 2016 (this Court Decision 2015No1249), and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive, from June 25, 2016 to November 4, 2016; and the Defendant was forced to commit a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (hereinafter “Act on Promotion, etc.”) (hereinafter “Act on Promotion, etc.”) (hereinafter “Act on Promotion, etc.”) and forced the Defendant to commit a violation of defamation.

[This Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 131, 2017 High Court 402 (Consolidation)] The defendant appealed against the above judgment, and is currently in the appellate trial.

(this Court 2018No411) . [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap 1 to 60 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for all damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the tort of defamation, insult, intimidation, obstruction of business, or attempted coercion as above.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the content of the posting and writing of this case is true and writing on the bulletin board is for the public interest for the purpose of preventing the damage caused by the misunderstanding of the plaintiff A, and thus, it is not illegal.

A civil trial shall be bound by the fact-finding in a criminal trial.