정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The document of the Korea Food and Drug Administration dated January 19, 2006 stated that the results of water quality testing tests meet the water quality standards and can be used as manufacturing water to be manufactured for drinking water under the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Drinking Water Management Act. Thus, the test result for reference does not fall under the "drinking water" under the provisions of the above Act, and although the probative value cannot be proven to meet the water quality standards stipulated in the Drinking Water Management Act, it is illegal for the Gangwon District Tax Office to approve the manufacturing method (additional) to the victim under the circumstance of misunderstanding the above facts, since it is against the law because it was an abuse of discretionary power.
Therefore, it is not a statement of false facts on the part of the defendant's assertion to that effect.
Even if the Defendant’s assertion is false, the Defendant primarily asserted to the effect that it was illegal because it does not fall under drinking water stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Management of Drinking Water Act, and that approval of manufacturing method (additional) was made by the court. However, as in the instant case, the Defendant did not have asserted to the effect that “the water quality inspection test report was illegal because it was used as a reference to it.” As such, the Defendant believed that it was true, and there was considerable reason to believe that it was illegal. Therefore, the illegality should be excluded.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court specifically stated the grounds for finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.
In addition to the judgment of the court below.