The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal doctrine 1) The victim acquired the instant service list “B” (hereinafter referred to as “B”) similar to “the right to use the instant service list” (hereinafter referred to as “the victim’s domain name”) from “I” (hereinafter referred to as “the victim’s domain name”) and infringed the right to use the instant service list that was already registered prior to the acquisition of the Defendant’s service list for travel business, etc.

For this reason, on June 20, 2013, the Defendant’s request for business cooperation to the person in charge of the portal site’s customer center, including Neneber, demanding the cancellation of the registration of the victim’s domain name (hereinafter “request for business cooperation”) does not constitute a deceptive scheme.

E. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the Defendant’s request for cooperation in the instant business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The trademark right holder may also demand a person who is likely to infringe the trademark right to prohibit or prevent the infringement (Article 65 of the Trademark Act). The defendant, as the representative director B, exercised the right to prevent the infringement of the service right of this case, and there was no intention to interfere with the business of the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the intention of interference with business.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, “defensive means” means that a person causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act, and means that the establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, and the risk of causing interference with business.