The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Meritorious legal principles as to the dissemination of false facts in the crime of interference with business

A. In the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act, the crime of interference with business refers to spreading facts that are not objectively consistent with the truth, and thus does not constitute a mere expression of opinion or value judgment. In distinguishing whether the subject matter is a fact or an opinion, the determination should be made by taking into account the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context where the pertinent speech was used, and the social situation where the expression was made.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2956 Decided March 24, 1998, and 2010Do17237 Decided September 2, 201, etc.). In this context, false facts do not necessarily mean false facts. Although fundamental facts are not false, it includes cases where there is a risk of interference with another person’s business by adding false facts to a considerable extent. However, in light of the overall purport of the contents, it does not constitute a case where there is no risk of interference with the other person’s business because the important part is consistent with objective facts, and there is a little difference in detailed facts or a little exaggerated expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1580, Sept. 8, 2006).

Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the following circumstances: (a) although the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) operated by the Defendant is not a patent holder holding the patent right for the Internet civil petition certification service commercialized on the domestic date, the Plaintiff’s final final final judgment in favor of the Defendant at the Supreme Court’s final final final final final judgment in favor of all lawsuits, and the patent interest lawsuit is complete upon receiving the final final judgment in favor of the Defendant as of March 28, 2008.