A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles have damages claim against the victim company due to unfair trade practices. Thus, the victim company has the lien or concurrent performance defense that can refuse to deliver gold to the victim company.

Therefore, the rejection of gold-type delivery is not a legitimate exercise of rights, and the exercise of rights by the Bank of Bankruptcy D has exceeded the permissible level in terms of social norms in light of the period of rejection, etc.

It is also difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable, which is deemed unfair. (2) The sentence that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) The defendant argued the same purport in the lower court’s judgment. The lower court, in collusion with E, by taking advantage of the victim’s multi-level situation from March 23, 2016 to March 30, 2016, where the defendant fails to supply parts to Hyundai Motor Vehicle, he/she would suffer a big economic disadvantage if he/she would not receive the request from Hyundai Motor Vehicle, and would act as if he/she would not receive the request from the victim and would not return it, and eventually, he/she would have received KRW 100 million from the victim’s staff to Hyundai Motor Vehicle. In so doing, it is doubtful whether the defendant would have exercised his/her legal status as the victim at the time of exercising his/her right to demand compensation for losses (the above act would be reasonable).