A. Defendant 1) The time limit for the provision of parts to customers misunderstanding the legal principles came and the company was an urgent situation in which the company is liable to default, unless there is a gold punishment.

Since there is no time to take legal procedure, a punishment has been imposed inevitably, it is not illegal because it constitutes a legitimate act or self-help under the Criminal Code.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amounting to four million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine must be made on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances, whether a certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, should be determined on an individual basis by rationally and reasonably considering the following: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074, Apr. 27, 2006). In addition, under the Criminal Act, a self-help act is stipulated under the Criminal Act.

The term "a claim is not preserved in accordance with the legal procedure and refers to a substantial act to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of its execution (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2582, 84 reduction of Do397, Dec. 26, 1984). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the date of shipment for the first delivery of the contract that accounts for most of the sales of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") operated by the defendant was September 8, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13588, Sep. 8, 2015; Act No. 2477, Sep. 2, 2015>