1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A and D, which constitutes the following additional payments.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the part of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the Plaintiff A and D parts additionally quoted in the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance

2. In full view of all the circumstances, including the details and contents of the modified portion of the tort in this case, and the psychological condition of the victimized children, it is reasonable to determine the consolation money of Plaintiff A as KRW 7 million and KRW 9 million.

With respect to the parts additionally quoted in the trial (Plaintiff A and D each two million won), the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act until January 12, 2017, which is the date following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, as the date of tort by Defendant G, from April 15, 2015, and from April 8, 2015, which is the date following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case by Defendant H, which is deemed reasonable for each Defendants to dispute on the existence or scope of the obligations, as well as the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of complete payment.

3. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance that partially different conclusions among the part against plaintiffs A and D is unfair, and thus, it is revoked by partially accepting the appeal by the above plaintiffs and ordering the defendants to pay the above amount additionally recognized in the trial. Since the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance against the above plaintiffs and the parts of plaintiffs B, C, E, and F are legitimate, the remaining appeals by the above plaintiffs and appeals by plaintiffs B, C, E, and F and the appeals by the defendants are dismissed, respectively.

However, the phrase “3,00,000 won” as referred to in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance is clear that it is a clerical error of “3,00,000 won”.