업무방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The defendant alleged that the summary of the grounds for appeal is not false (fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) was a company that sold the “E” program and the “F program” program (hereinafter the above program referred to as the “instant program”). However, it constitutes H’s occupational breach of trust to enter into a license agreement with the victim L, a representative of K, with respect to the instant program, which is an important confidential information of H as the founder and director of the said I.
Therefore, since L’s provision of the instant program as the name of M (M, E same program), N (N, and F) is illegal, the Defendant’s publication to the effect that each of the above programs was “illegal distribution” does not constitute a dissemination of false facts, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
The court below asserted that the creativity of the instant program cannot be recognized. However, although the instant program is a creative production jointly developed in conformity with the Korean market by G and I, it is a software different from that of the title of the instant program sold in China, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.
Since the Defendant, from July 2012 to July 1, 2012, filed a copyright registration for the instant program under the name of I, the Defendant posted a notice that the victim L illegally distributed the instant program from September 2013 to December 2013, and in light of the fact that the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against H, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not actively recognize that the writing he/she posted was false. However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of false facts.