The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) revealed false information, thereby obstructing the business operations of the medical corporation D E hospital, the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the fact that “the material part is consistent with objective facts, and only there is a little degree of difference or exaggeration, and thus, constitutes a case where there is no risk of obstructing another person’s business.”

2. In relation to the crime of interference with business by interference with the legal doctrine, the phrase “contributing false facts” does not necessarily mean that the basic facts are false. Although the basic facts include cases where there is a risk of interference with another’s business by adding false facts to a considerable extent even if they are true, the basic facts also include cases where there is a danger of interference with the business of another person. However, in light of the overall purport of the content, the important parts are consistent with objective facts, merely because there is a little difference

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1580 Decided September 8, 2006). 3. Based on the evidence duly admitted and duly examined, the court below acknowledged the following: (a) based on the evidence duly admitted, the court below acknowledged: (b) determined that: (a) the Plaintiff, a patient hospitalized by E Hospital F, refused to prepare drugs on the ground that the daily recommended daily quantity is 10mg; (c) the hospital medicine division rejected the preparation of drugs on the ground that the daily recommended quantity was 10mg; (b) there was a dispute between F and the medicine division; (c) the Defendant, he was hospitalized as the same patient; (d) the Defendant’s refusal of the preparation of medicine division from G, a doctor F’s assistant; and (e) the Defendant’s refusal of the preparation of drugs division from G, a doctor F’s assistant, was a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

Based on these facts, the lower court held that the Defendant is in conflict with the doctor and the pharmacist of medicine.