The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A A The fine of 1.5 million won and the defendant B shall be punished.

A. The Defendants were acquitted for the following reasons by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and found the Defendants guilty.

1) The Defendants are limited to “A’s internal research institute” in the operation of Defendant A (hereinafter “G’s internal research institute”).

The fact that the I pharmacy in the operation of the victim stated that "the first pharmacy in the victim's operation did not make a sublet to prescribe and sublet the drug, the drug value is also fluored, the drug value is also fluored, and the drug has been lent in other places, and the drug wholesaler has not paid the drug value and thus the drug wholesaler has not been involved in the transaction is not false."

2) The “I pharmacy for the patients who were within G” is in bankruptcy due to bad credit standing, and even if the Defendants were to such remarks, they did not indicate any personal opinion or evaluation, and thus did not indicate any false fact.

3) The Defendants merely delivered the truth to the patients or their employees through the pharmaceutical company employees, and there was no intention to spread false facts.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 1 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the context of interference with the business of the relevant legal doctrine, the phrase “contributing false facts” does not necessarily mean that the basic facts are false. Although the basic facts include cases where there is a risk of interference with another’s business by adding false facts to a considerable extent even if they are true, it does not constitute a case where the material part is consistent with objective facts, and it does not constitute a case where there is a little difference in detailed contents or degree of exaggerated expressions, and thus there is no risk of interference with another’s business (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da958, Sept. 8, 2006