A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the conflict among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant merely notified that the Defendant had data on the facts of omission at the time of the execution of the instant apartment construction as a means for receiving retirement allowances not received from the victim company. This does not constitute a justifiable act that satisfies all the requirements such as legitimacy of motive or purpose, reasonableness of means or method, urgency, and supplement.

B) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not demand the victim company to pay KRW 20 million to the victim company. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in the facts charged of this case refers to the act that is permissible in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the pertinent facts charged. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate social norms and thus, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) balance between the legal interests of the protected interests and the infringed interests; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699, Oct. 23, 2008). Meanwhile, a creditor may exercise his/her right to demand the collection of claims, etc. on the other hand, and may be permitted under the law.