A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a business employee of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) mainly engaged in pipeline mining and painting manufacturing business, etc., and the (State)C is in relation to a competitor in relation to the Plaintiff E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) operated by the Victim D (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) and the strong manufacturing and painting business.

On February 3, 2004, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of a patent with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on April 15, 201 with respect to a patent right “F” registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on February 3, 2004, and received a trial on invalidation of a patent at the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 15, 2011. On December 23, 2011, the Defendant was subject to a judgment on invalidation of a patent right at the Korean Patent Court, but was well aware that the said judgment was in a state of absence

Nevertheless, the Defendant sent a false notice to the effect that “the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the invalidity of the above patent right of the victimized company was rendered,” to the traders of the victimized company, to interfere with the business related to the sales of the lectures of the victimized company, a competitor.”

1. On December 29, 2011, the Defendant: (a) formulated and served a false notice stating that “The patent G of the victimized Company was invalidated by the first instance court on June 15, 201; (b) on December 23, 2011, the second final judgment of the Supreme Court became final and conclusive on December 23, 201, the victimized Company shall not have the right to the patent; and (c) notified that the victimized Company shall not be bound to take legal measures at the time of infringement of our patent utility model pursuant to Articles 126, 127, 130, and 225 of the Patent Act; and (d) made it possible for the victimized Company to have legal disputes arising from the possibility of infringement of the right to the utility model of the victimized Company if the above patent becomes final and conclusive, and maintain transaction relations with the victimized Company.”

The Defendant spreads false facts as above.