2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “victim”) from around August 2001 to the manufacturing and selling company at the location of the power plant, and the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”) is the company (representative E) that produces products using the outboard ship.

The defendant was accused of a criminal complaint from E, the representative director of the victim company, against the charge of patent infringement in relation to the location of the Kabow which is manufactured and sold in C, but was subject to a disposition on August 22, 201. On November 22, 2012, the Suwon District Court sentenced two years of suspension of execution to six months of imprisonment and became final and conclusive on October 27, 2014 due to obstruction of business. The crime was committed on August 26, 2011, against us, the violation of the Patent Act was terminated.

(O) The title of the difference between two patents is that it has interfered with the affairs of the victim company by posting an article on the hazards of the sloping beamline in the method of blocking the sloping beamline.

On June 3, 2015, at around 16:46, the Defendant visited C’s office located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, with a view to slandering a victim company that mainly produces and sells a mobile ship license, using a computer, and responded to the contents and answers made by the Suwon District Court to determine the harmfulness of the mobile ship that is contained in the notice file, which is the effect of the mobile ship on the human body, and the attachment file of the notice board, which is the cause of the mobile ship, in order to determine the harmfulness of the mobile ship.