Interference with Business

Spreading false facts refers to the act of conveying content that differs from actual objective facts to an unspecified number of persons.

In this case, the actor must clearly recognize that the facts he or she conveyed are false.

Even if the basic facts are true, if a substantial degree of false content is added to those facts so as to create a risk of interfering with another person's business, this can constitute the spreading of false facts.

Supreme Court Decision 2021Do6634, Decided September 30, 2021

A deceptive scheme refers to conduct in which the actor causes the other party to form a misapprehension, a mistaken belief, or ignorance in order to achieve his or her purpose, and exploits this to cause the other party to take a mistaken action or make a mistaken disposition.

In addition, it has been held that interference with business is established even where no actual interference with business occurs, as long as there is a risk that the business may be interfered with as a result of the conduct.

Accordingly, the crime can be established even where a state involving a risk of interfering with business arises.

​

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Decided September 10, 2009

Force means any power capable of suppressing or throwing into confusion a person's free will, and this includes not only violence and intimidation but also pressure exerted through social, economic, or political status or power.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Decided September 10, 2009

The crime of interference with business and the crime of defamation are distinguished according to the type of harm and the purpose arising from the spreading of false facts.

Interference with business is established where a person interferes with another party's business by spreading false facts or by improper means such as deceptive scheme or force.

Defamation, by contrast, is a crime that is established when content that infringes upon another person's social reputation is present, whether the facts are false or true.

The statute of limitations for prosecution of interference with business is 7 years under Article 249, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

For interference with business to be established, the content that the person spread must differ from objective facts, or there must be conduct that causes the other party to be misled.

Unlike a mere expression of opinion or criticism, it must be closely examined whether false information was intentionally spread.

In addition, whether the conduct constitutes deceptive scheme or force is also important, and it must be determined whether the other party was actually thrown into confusion or had its decision-making affected.

You should analyze specifically how the other party's business was interfered with.

An objective determination should be made by considering the nature and scale of the business, as well as the direct impact of the interfering conduct and the possibility of interference.

Distinguishing it from a mere difference of opinion or temporary confusion, whether the conduct actually caused a disruption to the performance of business is the key.

To prove your innocence or to rebut the allegation, you should systematically secure all materials that can prove the circumstances at the time.

You should organize materials that can prove the timing and content of the conduct, such as text messages, emails, recordings, and posts, by date, and keep the originals safely.

When you are questioned by an investigative agency, you should avoid false statements or exaggerated answers, and you should make clear statements based on the facts.

During questioning, it is important to be familiar with your rights and the procedures, and to cooperate faithfully with what is required.

An emotional response or an unnecessary dispute can worsen the situation, so you should approach it calmly.

Objective evidence should be gathered to establish the falsity of the opposing party's allegations or the absence of any deceptive or coercive conduct, and the circumstances of the case should be organized systematically to develop a response strategy.

This strengthens the legal defense and helps prevent unnecessary misunderstanding or distortion.