(b) Interference with business;

(c) Defamation;

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.);

2. D. B

3.(c) b. C

The court below rejected a public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there was an expression of the victim's intention not to punish the defendant A and C as to defamation, but did not dismiss the public prosecution on the ground that the defendant A and C were not guilty of interference with each business of the defendant A and C, who have a relation of commercial concurrent crimes.

The prosecutor filed an appeal only with respect to the part not guilty, and the dismissal of the above dismissal part, which is related to the commercial concurrent crimes, was also tried to be remanded to the appellate court, but that part was already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties and was actually excluded from the object of inquiry. Accordingly, the conclusion of the judgment below as to the dismissal of the above dismissal part is followed and it is not judged again

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

As examined below, although the evidence submitted by the prosecutor reveals that all of the charges of this case against the defendants can be found guilty, the court below acquitted the whole charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

A. Causing property damage to Defendant A

The court below found the facts that the laundry of this case was damaged, that Defendant A was in a normal condition at the time of the laundry before the laundry of this case, that Defendant A opened the laundry of this case and carried out three times the laundry of this case, and that the laundry of this case was discovered at the time of the laundry of this case. However, the court below acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges on the grounds that Defendant A’s causal relation that the laundry of this case was damaged by the laundry of this case and that Defendant A knew that the laundry of this case was damaged by the laundry of this case, even if there was no reasonable doubt, and that Defendant A did not prove that the laundry of this case was damaged by the laundry of this case.

However, according to the CCTV video recording the act of Defendant A at the time of the crime of this case, and the statements of German promoter and staff at the time of the crime of this case, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant A damaged the above laundry machine due to the act of Defendant A to take the laund of the 1 year old flag at 3 times in good faith.

In addition, the defendant A, who has been engaged in the research and development of laundry for not less than 30 years, has dolusent awareness that the result of damage may occur due to his act that cannot be seen as the performance test of ordinary laundry season.

B. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) against Defendant B

The court below found Defendant B not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant B opened the instant 2 laundry and accepted the fact that it was true, but the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was destroyed by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, Defendant B opened the language of the said laundry, thereby damaging the damage to the laundry by hand, and Defendant B did not prove any reasonable doubt as to the fact that Defendant B conspired with the non-person in whose name the laundry had committed this part of the crime.

However, compared to the new products of the same kind, when compared to the second washing machines and drying machines of the same kind, the terms are as follows, and they are in a serious degree, so even if there is no particular difference in the function to open and close the language, it is already damaged. Also, according to the screen image taken by German staff AI (hereinafter “AI”) at the scene immediately after the crime of this case, it is confirmed that the terms of the second washing machines and drying machines of this case are damaged and they are not well closed well.

On the other hand, according to each statement of AI and AF, which was at the scene of the instant crime, the fact that Defendant B conspiredd with the person in an infinite name and caused damage, such as this part of the facts charged, is sufficiently recognized.

C. The point of obstructing each business affair against Defendant A and C

The lower court acquitted Defendant A and C of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the contents of the article Nos. 1 and 2 of this case were false, and even if false, Defendant A and C did not have any reasonable doubt.

However, as seen in the above A. and B., Defendant A and B committed the act of practice with intent to commit damage, and the above Defendants did not implement the test for the laundry manufactured by other companies than the laundry manufactured by Samsung Electronic, and the part of the laundry of the first and second laundry cannot be seen as relatively weak, the contents of Articles 1 and 2 constitute false facts.

In addition, at the time of preparing the news report materials provided to reporters prior to the distribution of article 1 and 2 of this case, Defendant C and A had been well aware that the part of the article 1 and 2 of Samsung electronic laundry products was not much weak than those of other companies, and thus, there was a clear perception of false facts.

3. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s damage to property

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant A, around 10:30 on September 3, 2014, 10: (a) around 10:30, at K Lblin Germany (hereinafter referred to as “LB”) for only Samsung Electronic Products located within K Lblin Lb (hereinafter referred to as “Lblin”). Defendant C&L blicking machine (hereinafter referred to as “the first washing machine in this case” in the above 2-A; hereinafter the same shall apply) displayed for public relations purposes at Samsung C&L blicking machine (hereinafter referred to as “the first washing machine in this case”); Defendant C&L blicking his hand with his left hand, opened a washing machine with his hand, and cut the upper part, knee and keled with his body, and cut the above 20th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the la.

2) The judgment of the court below

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, for the reason that the gap between the main body and the main body of the first year of age of this case at the time of the verification, etc. is less than normal products, the connection between the main body of the first year of age of this case and the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the main body of the laundry, and accordingly, the laundry was placed under the opening of the main body of the main body of the laundry, and the laundry was difficult to close once more than normal products, and it appears that the situation of the laundry of the above laundry seems to have been temporarily inappropriate for the purpose of promoting products, and that the defendant A appears to have been in the first laundry on September 10, 2014 to the extent of open 13 laundry.

B) However, in light of the following circumstances, the circumstances and evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are not sufficient to prove that ① Defendant A was aware that the part of the laundry was sing down or the laund at the same time as at the time of the inspection due to Defendant A’s behavior taking place the laundry of the instant laundry on the day of the instant case, and ② Defendant A was aware that the laundry caused the problem of opening the laundry by making the laundry under his own behavior even if the laundry was dolusible at the time of the inspection (the intention) without any reasonable doubt.

(1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as CCTV images, etc. about Defendant A’s act revealed in CCTV images, alone does not prove that Defendant A classified the terms of the first washing machine at the time by hand. In addition, in light of the following circumstances, CCTV images alone do not prove that Defendant A was making efforts to get out of the language of the first washing machine at the time.

○ It is not recognized that the above defendant was divided into two descendants.

The left arms of the above defendant who takes part in laundry at the time of ○○ appears to have been driven more than about 90 degrees, and the status of the arms seems to be different from the shape of the arms in which people who want to put a strong power on the laundry in order to load the body, and rather, they seem to have a strong power on the laundry.

○ It is difficult to view that the Defendant she kneeed or kneeed the body solely on the sole ground that the Defendant was knee when the said Defendant takes laver. At the time, due to the relationship between the Defendant’s place and the laundry, etc., the Defendant divided the kne outside of the top of the laund of the laund language. In such a situation, it may be difficult to kneee down the body on the side of the laund, not the arms, by taking the knee on the side of the laund.

In CCTV images, when the above defendant takes a laundry, the appearance of the body of the laundry is not observed.

When the above defendant divided the laundry, it cannot be said that the laundry come up immediately or his her flaundry came down solely with the fact that the laundry seems to have come down below. Rather, in light of CCTV images at the time, if the above defendant ceased to take action to take out the laund, it is observed that the laundry of the laundry would go back again (in accordance with the laundry itself).

According to the self-examination of the ○ Samsung T&M side, when the weight added to Samsung C&T labus washing machine was fluored, it would have come to a permanent alteration of about 40 meters from the weight of about 87 km. However, it is highly probable that the above behavior of the above Defendant alone alone was difficult to view that such action of the above Defendant alone led to considerable power.

(2) The point at which the problem of laundry is discovered

In light of the following circumstances, the statement to the effect that "the promoer and the employee working in the L Burial at the time discovered the problem of the first washing machine of this case immediately after the defendant left the House," is lacking credibility, and it is difficult to view that the time when the problem of the first washing machine of this case was discovered only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, is right after the defendant's action. At the time, since the time of the first washing machine of this case, many people appear to have visited L sales and this case, and the first washing machine of this case can only be seen as having opened the door freely. Considering the circumstances such as the fact that the first washing machine of this case can be seen as having been seen as having come up with the fact that the promoer and the employee could not memory the behavior of the visitors, including the defendant, after the above defendant's act, because of other people's behavior or other causes, it cannot be easily ruled out that the problem of the first washing machine of this case occurred.

A. At least six months from the date of the occurrence of the instant case, the promoter prepared a written statement, and in fact, he was unable to memory most of the forms of officers and employees of LG electronics, including Defendant A, or their specific actions at the time. AE, who is an employee of LG, stated in the lower court that “AE, becomes aware of the occurrence of a problem in the first laundry fishing of the instant case, is a am or p.m.”

At the time of the preparation of the written statement between ○ and AE, since the CCTV images taken by Defendant A from the face of the first laundry of this case were displayed, it is likely that Defendant A was exposed to any problem in the terms of the above laundry due to the act of the above Defendant.

At the time of 00, AC first discovered that the problem was occurred in the language of the instant No. 1 washing machine, and notified AE. AC, which is a promoer, is capable that the time of Defendant A's daily operation, was memoryed to the extent of '3 to 4 hours from 10:0 p.m. the time of her daily operation,' or '3 to 10:4 hours after the opening of the L store,' and the reason for memory as such, 'Defendant A' was unsatisfying, and she was unsatisfying without a satisfy trial due to the cause of his memory.' However, Defendant A's daily operation at the instant bar seems to be difficult to easily see the difference between the time of opening of the L store and the time of the above 10:20m. If the above statement was made, it is possible that the above person was aware that he started the daily operation of the same other satch immediately after the above statement.

It seems that the CCTV images, in which Defendant A was listed on the 1st floor 2th floor of L Burial following Defendant A’s Japan, are exposed to any laund where they open the terms of the product that AC appears to be laundry to the employees seen as AE and divide any stories.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that AC has discovered and notified the issue of the 1 washing machine of this case (as seen earlier, promoers and AE are unable to properly memory the view of finding the situation at the time or the laundry), even if so, it is difficult to view that the time when the above act was performed is immediately after the Defendant’s daily activity was listed on the first floor of the Lbund.

Although Defendant A remains in approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes a day-to-day L store, Defendant A left a 1-to-day store, or left the place of this case, Defendant A did not raise any objection to the fishery of the first laundry season. This is different from the ordinary behavior expected to take if the employees of the store discovered the problem of the fishing of the instant laundry season immediately after Defendant A left the place of this case.

After the promoer left Defendant A’s laund, the CCTV images of the L Center Grise, which were taken to verify the condition of the first laundry in this case and to find the problem, were not produced as evidence during the pleadings in this case.

(3) Other circumstances consistent with Defendant A’s assertion.

The CCTV images taken by Defendant A do not appear in the process of finding out who was at the seat of the head of the instant laundry machine, but came out in the process of checking who had an access to the said laundry machine. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the existence of the CCTV images alone did not have any other reason to believe that there was no problem in the language of the first laundry machine, other than the Defendant’s act, in addition to the aforementioned Defendant’s act.

In light of CCTV images at the time of ○○, Defendant A’s laundry, immediately after the act of laundry, also closed the language. From such perspective, it does not appear that the laundry is well closed or that the laundry is seen as having a question about the status of the language. The above Defendant’s statement that the laundk at the time was laundry to see the laundry’s entry into the laundry, or that the laundry without laundry by opening the laundry, shows that the laundry was generated in the CCTV at the time, and that the laundry was not persuasive. The laundry of this case’s laundry, which was installed in the instant laundry, was the only evidence list 6-4 laundry, which was produced in the instant laundry before the instant laundry, and it appears that the laundry was not easy for the laund at the time of the instant laundry.

At the time of the instant case, the promoter reported that Defendant A her laund language was sleeped or her laundry at a relatively nearest distance, and the instant father was a place where the passage of visitors was frequent by leaving the entrance of the building, and the said Defendant remains more than one hour after leaving the instant father.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is conducted, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the court below's decision that the defendant was not guilty of the charge of causing property damage against the defendant A is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles. The prosecutor's ground for appeal on this part

A) Even in accordance with the notice of 'video appraisal that the prosecutor submitted as evidence in the trial for the purpose of trial (the document of 's scientific investigation1' and 'the document of 'the image review articles'), it is not clearly confirmed whether Defendant A's damage caused by the laundry and the laundry and the object (signing) adjacent to the laundry and laundry machines was taken in the language of the 1 laundry.

B) As a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime, dolusent intention refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable. In order to have dolusent intention, there is not only awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, but also an internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the offender is aware of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, or not, must be determined based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside, without depending on the statement of the offender. In such a case, the psychological state of the offender must be confirmed. In light of the above legal principles, the burden of proof of the existence of dolusive intention, which is the subjective element of the crime, is imposed on the prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004). Examining the following circumstances acknowledged in the record in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to deem that there is no reasonable doubt for the defendant A to have been intentional damage.

According to the CCTV image, Defendant A, a CB of the instant 1 washing machine, performed the act of opening the language and cutting the language three times, and then closed the language, and the Plaintiff, AT of LG electronic, brought the upper part of the liquid panel, and operated the said laundry machine into the upper part of the said laundry machine, followed the act that the said Defendant again opened the laundry machine, sees the inside, and explains and instructs what to LG electronic officers and employees in the surrounding areas. This series of actions seems to be relatively natural in terms of examining the appearance, performance, characteristics, etc. of the first laundry of the instant laundry manufactured by the said Defendant, which is a CB of the said company, and considering the appearance, performance, characteristics, etc. of the said laundry.

According to the CCTV video, immediately after the first washing machine of this case was examined, Defendant A, following the first washing machine, engaged in various household appliances, such as air conditioning equipment and air conditioning equipment manufactured by Samsung C&M, and followed up with the first floor of L store and the first floor of the gas conditioning equipment.

○ Although CCTV was not taken in CCTV, according to the statements made by officers and employees of LG electronic officers and employees accompanying Defendant A at the time, the above Defendant was recognized as having examined the products manufactured by European companies, such as smuggling, by itself as the first laundry of this case.

O LG electronics conducted an independent analysis of the shape, material, and robbery of Samsung C&M labus laundry before the occurrence of the instant case, but there is no evidence to prove that such analysis results were reported to Defendant A. In addition, the employer’s experience, which can be understood as only dividing and understanding the numerical-centered analysis results and actual mapping, appears to be separate.

In Europe where laundry machines are mainly installed in the kitchen unlike Korea, children are sitting up in the laundry advertising such as the first laundry of this case, or the user laundry machine launds down in the laundry, or the user laundry machine launds down below it.

B. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) against Defendant B

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

On September 3, 2014, at around 12:30, the Defendant opened the 0 center of K located in the Nerin Gmany at the Nermany (hereinafter referred to as “this store”). K purchased from Samsung Electronic and displayed it as the 2 laundry (referred to as “the 2 laundry” in the above 2-b; hereinafter the same shall apply) and opened the laundbbing machine, and closed the labing machine, and then cut the laundbing machine more than several times in the same way, and then cut the above labing machine, and the 1st labing machine and the 4th labing machine were not made up of the 0th labing machine, and the 1st labing machine and the 4th labing machine were not made up of the 1st labing machine, and the 1st labing machine and the 1st labing machine were made up of the 1st lab.

2) The judgment of the court below

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts are revealed: ① Defendant B was laundry at Defendant B’s store; ② AI, an employee of the above store, collected each language of the second laundry and the second laundry and the second laund, as indicated in the facts charged, or stated to the effect that “the first laund would not properly close the wind, as the Defendant B and the non-member of the above laundry,” and that “the first laund would be the second laundry and the second laundry, the second laundry and the second laundry,” and the second laundry was dispatched to this store immediately after this case’s laundry, and the fact that Defendant B purchased four laundry as a compensation.

B) However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the language was destroyed or damaged without properly closing, such as the instant laundry and the instant drying machine as indicated in the facts charged.

As a result of the examination by the court below, the second laundry and drying machine of this case do not seem to have any slicks required before the back of the back of the back, even if the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back

○ Although the specific location of the laundry or drying machine’s laund on the back of the laundry or its slope is somewhat lower in comparison with the new product, in the case of the new product, it seems that the degree of such force is not likely to vary depending on the specific location of the laundy or its slope in the process of opening the laundry or its slope in the process of opening the laundry or its slope, and the power to fix the laundry at the end to close the laundry or its slope. The degree of this force is not likely to vary depending on the specific location in the laundry or its slope.

0 In the case of the second laundry of this case, the door is not closed when the part of the laundry of the laundry has been divided differently from the new product, but it is difficult to see that the laundry of the laundry is part of the laundry in a general way to close when the laundry of the laundry is closed. There is no difference between the two laundry of this case and the 12 laundry of the laundry of this case.

In addition, there is no difference between the new product and the new product in the case of the building of this case and where the word is closed.

○ The length of the second laundry and drying machine of this case is more serious than that of the new product if they were scam and scambling by hand in the open 90 degrees. However, the difference is not so big, and even in the case of the new product, a certain degree of scambling as above. This part of the facts charged is deemed as a result of the damage that “the state in which scambling or cutting down the power” is “the state in which scambling or cutting down the power,” and it is not considered as the damage itself.

It is difficult to accept the argument that the state of the fish at the time of verifying the second laundry and drying machines of this case has naturally improved by the carbon force of the parts without any repair after the elapse of time after the occurrence of this case. If, as alleged in the above, it is difficult to evaluate that the result of damage was caused temporarily immediately after the occurrence of this case. On the day of this case, the video taken by AI as of the day of this case is closed as the above time when the fish of the said laundry and drying machines is closed, and the situation immediately after the inspection of the court below seems to be significantly different from the situation at the time of the inspection of the court below.

C) Even if the second laundry in comparison with the new product, even if the laundry in this case evaluated that the laundry in a state where the laundry would not close well at one time, and that the laundry was damaged, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without any reasonable doubt that Defendant B engaged in the same behavior as the facts charged in the second laundry in this case. The direct evidence sufficient to the effect that Defendant B engaged in the same behavior as the facts charged in this part of this case during the second laundry. At the court of the court below, the artificial intelligence stated that the laundry in this case was the second laundry in the right side, and that the laundry in this case was divided into the above laundry in the right side, and that the laundry in the first laundry and the laundry at the right side, but there was no change in the name of Defendant B in the facts charged.

However, in the prosecutor's investigation, AI stated that "the second laundry of this case was made on the left side and on the right side of this case," and both AI and AF stated in the statement or prosecutor's investigation that "on the left side of the defendant's defendant's name was left in the left part." In addition, if it is sufficient for the person who has failed to stand in the name to the left part, the product that the person in failure to stand in the name was left in the open part has a high probability of probability of the second laund on the second laundry date of this case, which is located on the left side of the body (in the open part of the building of this case, it is located on the right side of the body, such as AI's statement, to look at the inside of the laundry and take a attitude that is located on the right side of the body, such as the left part of the body).

Taking into account the circumstances such as the fact that both AI and AF prepared a written statement related to this part or was investigated by the prosecution around September 2014, which was around the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and that if the two persons were to act at the time of the said two persons, the probability that the two persons would be aware that the two persons would be less than the probability that the two persons would be aware of the arm's length of the arm's length of the arm's length, and that the building of this case was occurred on the left side of the instant case, rather than the statement after the alteration of AI, the statement before and after the alteration of AI seems to have been more reliable.

According to the statement of the OAI, until the end of September 2, 2014 or the next day, the location of the second laundry and the instant laundry was displayed on the left side of the 'the instant laundry'. After that, the location was changed at any time, at the latest on September 3, 2014, the 'the instant laundry and the instant 2 laundry' on the left side of the 'the instant laundry and the right side at the latest on September 30, 2014, and the said location was not accurately known of whether the said location was changed before the Defendant B’s laundry. As such, even at the time of the legal statement, it seems that the said Defendant was not clear that the said laundry was not the laundry but the 2 laundry of the instant laundry (the aforementioned laundry is more meaningful than the said laundry and it is more meaningful to distinguish both parties).

Defendant B stated to the effect that he was not considered to have examined and dried only in the laundry, and that laundry referred to by the above Defendant was not clear whether the laundry referred to by the above Defendant was the second laundry or another laundry on the side of the passage of the laundry, and there is no possibility that the Defendant might confuse the laundry with the instant laundry which is similar to the appearance of the laundry.

In full view of the circumstances such as response to LG electronic side against the first news article, the content that the said defendant was in this store at the time from Defendant B, and the compensation for all the four parts of the laundry machine at the time of the laundry, not only the two parts that the said defendant was in his own possession, it seems that Defendant B asserted that he did not have damaged his laundry from the time when the German police called out, and that the above Defendant’s compensation was made for the handling of the instant case, even though he had not destroyed the laundry machine for the purpose of use by the German LG Electronic Research Institute, taking into account his own position, schedule after the police called out, the situation in which the police called out, etc., was prevented from proceeding or leaving the Republic of Korea.

D) It is difficult to judge that the building machine in this case was destroyed by a person without a name in his hand, and it is difficult to find who is the person without a name, and the person with a name in his name was the person with a name in his name, and there is no direct evidence to find that the defendant conspired to damage the second laundry and dry machine at the time of his name in his name and the person with a name in his name in his name and in his name in his name

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is conducted, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the court below is just in holding that the defendant B was not guilty of the charge of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property destruction and damage, etc.). There is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles. The prosecutor's ground for appeal on this part is without merit.

A) According to the “CC professor fact-finding reply submitted by the Prosecutor as evidence in the trial at the trial,” even if laundry and dry language were permanently modified, if laundry and dry language were to close down the language with a load above the carbon limit or forcedly close the fishing, and maintain it for a certain period (at least one to ten days), it can be said that part of the laundry and dry language will be restored to their original state due to a decrease in the volume of permanent transformation. However, considering these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the status of the laundry and dry language at the time of the inspection at the court below was restored to their original state due to the laundry or the laundry transformation.

B) When comparing the terms of the second laundry and drying machines of this case with the terms of a new product of the same kind, even if they are not well closed at one time or they are shaking, taking into account the following circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that such terms have been caused by the same act as indicated in the facts charged by Defendant B.

The second laundry and drying machine of this case seems to have been displayed in the store before and after the maturity of Defendant B, etc., and to have been in a state where many people can grow up and close.

○ 2 laundry and drying of the instant case were delivered from Germany to Korea and kept in custody on December 8, 2014 before it was voluntarily produced to the prosecution, and there is no evidence to confirm the situation at the time of the instant occurrence without any external influence in the process of storage and delivery.

C) In the direct evidence of this part of the facts charged against Defendant B, the statement of the AI that the above Defendant observed the fact of the second laundry damage of this case is the only evidence, and considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the above statement of the AI is not reliable as it is.

In light of the video (Evidence Nos. 58-2) that an AI taken in this case’s 2 washing machines and drying machines on the day of the occurrence of the instant case, it is confirmed that the AI has taken the upper part of the fish in hand, from the perspective of showing that the fish is not properly closed as follows. 3)

Unlike the fact that the terms of the second washing machine and the drying machine in this case were not well closed in the above video, it was confirmed that the terms of the second washing machine and the drying machine in this case are smoothly closed at the time of the verification by the lower court.

OAI stated in the court below that a statement (Evidence Nos. 17) it prepared and submitted to the prosecution by himself/herself was prepared by himself/herself at the bar and that there was no review or revision by another person. However, according to the siren analysis on the above files, it is confirmed that the above files were prepared on the computer of a person with the character of " CD" and finally revised on the computer of a person with the character of "CE".

At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the AI served in this store as the machine storage (person in charge of sales promotion) of Samsung Electronic Products.

D) In order to determine the establishment of a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the following must be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt: (a) the status and role of the actors through the entire process of the realization of the crime; (b) the details of solicitation for other actors; and (c) the relationship of mutual use based on the intent of joint processing should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5355, Oct. 29, 2015); and (d) the evidence submitted on the record alone, which separates the roles of Defendant B and the non-persons; and (c) there is no reasonable proof as to whether the act was shared by Defendant A and C.

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

가) B는 O센터 매장에서 세탁기 파손 현장을 목격한 사람의 신고로, 보안요원에 의해 그곳 보안실에 1시간 이상 있었고, 경찰관이 출동한 후 변상의 의미로 손괴한 세탁기 대금을 지급한 후에야 풀려날 수 있었으며, 2014. 9. 3. 22:57경 일부 언론에 'LG전자 간부가 FA가 개최되는 독일에서 삼성전자 세탁기를 파손하다가 연행되었다.는 취지의 기사(이하 '최초 기사'라고 한다)가 보도되어, 홍보담당인 피고인C는 기자들로부터 이에 대한 LG전자의 입장을 밝혀달라는 요구를 받게 되었다. 피고인 C는 2014. 9. 4. 02:39경(독일 현지시각, 한국시각: 2014. 9. 4. 09:39) 독일 베를린 P 광장(Q Berlin Germany)에 있는 R 호텔에서, 사실은 B가 이 사건 제2세탁기 도어를 열어놓은 상태에서 양손으로 강하게 눌러 파손한 것이고, 위와 같은 방법으로 세탁기 도어를 누르는 것이 일반적인 제품의 사용환경을 알아보는 행위라고 할 수 없으며, B가 위 세탁기를 누르는 방식과 동일한 방법으로 다른 경쟁업체의 세탁기 도어를 열고 눌러본 사실이 없을 뿐만 아니라 일반적인 사용환경 확인과정에서 유독 위 세탁기만 손상된 것이 아님에도 불구하고, 「S」 이라는 제목 아래 「금일 '경쟁사 제품 파손' 논란과 관련해 실제 상황을 알려드립니다. 1. 고의 파손 및 혐의부인 관련 - 당사가 경쟁사 제품을 폄하할 목적으로 몰래 경쟁사 제품을 훼손시키려 했다면 연구원들이 갈 이유가 없음!! … 어떤 회사든, 연구원들이 해외 출장 시 현지매장을 방문해 자사는 물론 경쟁사 제품의 사용환경을 알아보는 것은 매우 일반적인 활동임. 이번에도 자사에서 현지로 출장 간 연구원 가운데 일부가 베를린 시내 소재 여러 가전회사 제품을 판매하는 양판점을 방문해 자사를 비롯한 경쟁업체들의 제품 테스트한 사실이 있었음. 그 과정에서 예상치 못하게 특정업체 제품만 유독 손상되는 현상이 발생」이라는 내용의 메일(이하 '이 사건 제1보도자료'라고 한다)을 작성하여 T 기자 U 등 약 400명에게 이메일로 발송하였다.

On the basis of the foregoing news report data, U.S. asserted that “I would not have any reason for the Institute to damage its e-mail products” and “I would have sought more planned methods if I wished to do so,” and that I would like to find out not only the local store but also the environment for the use of the competitor products.” Meanwhile, I would like to explain that I would like to find out the fact that I would like to damage only Samsung products, unlike other products in the process of laundry, and that I would like to see that I would not know the fact that I would like to impregalize the game products, and that I would not know that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see the article 20.4.

B) Defendant A and C made a report to the effect that, around 14:3, X 14:3, at LG E-electronic office located in Youngdong 20, there is no reason to believe that the part of Samsung CY laund laund laund is more vulnerable than that of other companies, and rather, Defendant A opened the first laund laund laund lab laund lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab 2 lab lab lab lab lab la lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab la.

At that time, Y’s Z, which received the above report data by e-mail, is the above report data.

Based on the title of "A", "A", the LG electronic claimed that "at the time, YG electronic was examined by examining the use environment of domestic and foreign company white paper products, including laundry in K L shop", and "the relevant model of the PPP company was relatively weak to connect the main body of the laundry with the original body of the laundry, unlike other company laundry." The article (the above 2-c. of "the above 2-c. of this case" was specified as the 2-c. of this case; the same shall apply hereinafter) was written, and around X 14:54, the article was inserted into Y through the news transmission system in the office in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AB. Accordingly, the defendant A and C conspired with the above reporter without knowledge about the fact that the part of the Samsung CP laundry was not solidly damaged, thereby hindering the victim's public relations and distribution of Samsung electronic products by openly laundry and selling them.

2) The judgment of the court below

A) Consumed legal principles

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 indicating simple opinion or value judgment.

The term “fact” refers to a report or statement of a specific past or present fact, which is an alternative to an expression of opinion, the subject of value judgment or evaluation, and the content of which can be proven by evidence. The distinction between whether the subject matter is a fact or an opinion shall be determined by considering the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language in question was used, the social situation in which the expression was used, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 201; 201Do2794, Jul. 26, 2013).

In addition, in relation to the crime of interference with business established by spreading false information through the method of spreading such false information, the crime of spreading false information refers to spreading to many and unspecified persons the fact with different contents from the objective facts. In particular, in such a case, it is required that the actor actively perceived that the fact he/she disseminated was false at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1278, Jan. 28, 1994; 2008Do6728, Nov. 27, 2008; 2008Do6728, Nov. 27, 2008).

B) Whether false facts are false

(1) The part that Defendant A and B did not intentionally damage laundry machines is not recognized to have intentionally damaged the first and second laundry machines of this case, and thus, the part that read Defendant A and B, the main contents of the first and second laundry articles of this case, does not intentionally damaged the said laundry machines, cannot be deemed as false.

(2) Of the contents of Articles 1 and 2 of the instant case, it is difficult to evaluate that the part of “the Defendant A and B discovered or tested the environment for the use of electronic equipment, including the laundry machine, in the relevant store in Germany, even though it is false, it is difficult to evaluate that the content itself interferes with the victim’s laundry sales of laundry machine.”

(3) The part that the laundry is relatively weak compared to the laundry of other companies among the contents of the laundry article No. 2 of this case is relatively weak." It is difficult to see that it is possible to prove the falsity by evidence because the specific meaning of the laundry article or the criteria for judgment can be interpreted in various ways without setting the specific meaning or criteria in the contents of the laundry article, and it is difficult to say that it is difficult to prove the falsity by evidence.

Even if the direct evidence to prove that this part is false is merely the result of the inspection of the laundry (Evidence No. 28) conducted on the part of the victim Samsung Electronic System, and the result of the examination conducted on the part of the above Samsung Electronic System is insufficient in light of the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is insufficient to prove that the contents of the above article were false. It is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that the contents of the article were false without any reasonable doubt.

(4) The part to the effect that the reason for damage to laundry is weak

In full view of the circumstances as indicated in the judgment below, it is difficult to view that the first and second laundry officers of this case are aware of the laundry itself, including whether the cause of the damage to the first and second laundry machines of this case was caused by the robbery of the laundry machines of this case, and as long as such, this part is deemed to be an expression of opinion rather than an expression of opinion of specific past or current facts, and even if it is viewed as a "fact", it cannot be viewed as a false fact because the first and second laundry machines of this case cannot be seen as having been aware of the cause as shown in the court's verification status.

C) Intentional intention

(1) The portion that the laundry machine was not intentionally damaged

In light of the circumstances stated in the judgment below, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was aware that Defendant A, A, and B had caused damage to the said laundry season due to the acts of Defendant A, A, and B at the time of the trial, and it is rather difficult to view that it was proven without reasonable doubt, and rather, it appears that the aforementioned Defendants were unaware of the specific conditions, accurate losses, and causes of the said laundry, and thus, it cannot be said that there was intention

(2) The part that the place of laundry was relatively weak

Even though the degree of intensity of the first and second laund machines of this case is objectively false compared to other products, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in light of the circumstances as stated in the judgment below, was proven without any reasonable doubt that Defendant A and C actively recognized that the above fact was false.

D) Sub-committee

Without having to examine whether indirect crime was established or not, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the contents of Articles 1 and 2 of this case were false, and even if false, it is not proven without reasonable doubt that Defendant A and C had awareness of false facts. Thus, this part of the facts charged cannot be found guilty.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is conducted, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records are considered as follows, the court below's decision that the defendant A and C was not guilty is just, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles. The prosecutor's ground for appeal on this part is without merit.

The article Nos. 1 and 2 of this case does not state all the contents of the news report Nos. 1 and 2 of this case on the premise that they are true, but inserted the contents of each of the above news report Nos. 1 and 2 into the article No. 3 of this case on the article No. 1 and 2 of this case, "LG Electronics ..." and "LG Electronics ........" This seems to be due to the intention of clarifying that the contents of the statement made by the LG Electronics . fall under an opinion rather than an "fact" rather than an "fact." From the perspective of ordinary readers, the above contents are likely to have been understood as a change from the LG Electronics ...

4. Conclusion

Since the appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is groundless, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young

Judges Full-time Leave

all facts means all facts.

2) If the concept of Korea is based on the concept of Korea, it constitutes a second floor.

3) Of the evidence list Nos. 58-2 video, part 13-21 seconds, 46-56 secondss