The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) of the defendant's patent (patent H) melts the heat at the bottom of the drainage re-explosives produced by the publicly known technology at the bottom of the drainage. Since any person with ordinary knowledge in the pertinent field can easily practice the patent, the above patent is invalid.

Therefore, the defendant sent a document to the effect that the victim E products infringed the defendant's patent (hereinafter referred to as "the document of this case") to G by facsimile and spread false facts.

In addition, the defendant, at the time of sending the document of this case, has sufficiently known the possibility that the content of the document of this case can be false while disputing the patent right with the victim at the time of delivering the document of this case, but sent the document of this case to the customer of the victim, so the defendant is not guilty of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Under the title "2. Judgment," the court below held that a patent is granted through the examination and registration of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, a State agency, and the Patent Act provides that a patent may be invalidated through a patent invalidation trial prepared separately for a certain reason. Thus, barring special circumstances, it is common for a patent holder to believe that his/her right is lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4949, Oct. 28, 2010). (1) At the time when the defendant delivered the document in this case, the defendant held a legitimate patent right through the examination and registration of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, as well as the situation where there is no legal dispute (or de facto dispute) related to the patent right in this case. (2) The defendant filed a patent application.