A. Although the defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this case, sent a public door to the trading company of F Co., Ltd. operated by the victim, the defendant knew that the victim and the defendant's company are currently in a patent litigation dispute, thereby preventing a bona fide victim according to the result of the trial. Since the defendant sent a public door to the defendant after receiving consultation from the patent law office representing the defendant company, there is no intention to interfere with the defendant's business.

B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the outcome of the interference with business is not required to actually occur, and there is sufficient risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr. 10, 1992). Thus, the intent does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, and it is sufficiently possible to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person’s business due to its own act, and its recognition or predictability is not only conclusive but also uncertain intent is also acknowledged as not only in conclusive but also in indefinite intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009; 201Do7943, May 24, 2012). The lower court duly admitted and duly examined as follows; i.e.,,, the victim’s application for printing printed materials from the Korean Intellectual Property Office to the Intellectual Property Tribunal.