[2] The meaning of the dissemination of false facts in relation to the crime of credit damage and the crime of interference with business, and the method of determining whether a person has an intent or an intentional act as a subjective element in the case of recognizing the dissemination of false facts on the ground

[3] The case holding that in case where the City/Do where the representative director of a construction project intends to bear the costs of a construction project forwards a document requesting the alteration of the product to the architectural designer, the content of the document does not constitute the credit which is the object of the crime of credit damage, on the ground that the content of the document does not prejudice the payment ability of the company selling

1. “Credit” in the crime of undermining credit under Article 313 of the Criminal Act refers to an economic credit, i.e., human payment ability or payment intent (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do1660, Jan. 21, 1969). The term “seminating false facts” under the same Article refers to the dissemination of facts different from the actual objective facts to many, unspecified or unspecified persons. In such a case, it is necessary to actively recognize that the facts he/she distributed were false at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278, Jan. 28, 1994). It is also necessary to recognize the spread of false facts on the grounds of the possibility of dissemination, at least as a subjective element of the constituent elements of crime, so it is necessary to recognize the possibility of dissemination, and furthermore, it is necessary to consider not only the awareness of the possibility of dissemination, but also the intent to accept such risk, and it is also necessary to assess the situation of the general public as 40/40 of the act.

그런데 기록에 의하면, 보성군이 발주한 이 사건 공사의 시공부분을 성원건설이, 건축설계부분을 공소외 1가 담당한 사실, 위 공소외 1은 동부건설의 직원 공소외 2의 부탁을 받고 1차 설계 정화조에 동부건설이 발명자 삼성엔지니어링 주식회사(이하 ‘삼성엔지니어링’이라고 한다)와 사이에 기술사용계약을 체결하여 그 사용권한을 가지고 있는 ‘하ㆍ폐수 처리에서 유동상 담체(BioCAP 및 BioPOP)를 이용한 유기물 및 질소제거기술’(이하 ‘이 사건 기술’이라고 한다)을 반영한 사실, 위 공소외 2는 2002. 1. - 2.경 성원건설의 직원 공소외 3, 4 등을 방문하여 1차 설계에 이 사건 기술이 반영되어 있음을 알리고 수사기록 110면의 카탈로그를 교부하며 그 가격에 관하여 논의를 한 사실(수사기록 120면의 카탈로그에는 특허증 교부일자가 기재된 특허증이 없고, 수사기록 별책의 카탈로그에는 2002년에 완공된 사업장이 기재되어 있어 위 교부시기와 부합하지 아니하며, 위 각 카탈로그의 발행인, 제목 등이 피고인이 공소장 기재 문서에 기재한 정화조의 제작자 및 이름과 부합하지 아니한다), 사업계획의 변경을 이유로 보성군이 2002. 1. 31. 성원건설에게 공사 중단을, 그 무렵 공소외 1에게 재설계를 각 명하고, 성원건설로 하여금 위 재설계비용을 부담하게 한 사실, 이에 피고인이 비용을 줄이려는 시도에서 1차 설계도면, 설계내역서, 시방서, 위 카탈로그 등을 통해 1차 설계 정화조의 성능, 용량 및 가격, 월간 거래가격 책자 등을 통해 다른 회사의 제품의 성능, 용량 및 가격 등을 알아본 후 공소외 1에게 2002. 10. 초순경 정화조에 관한 설계의 변경을 요청하고, 같은 달 18.경 ‘F.R.P 정화조 변경대체에 관하여’란 제목으로, ‘설계내역서(변경 전)를 확인한 후 타사 제품과 비교한바 값이 너무 높고 신기술 제품도 아니며 폐사에서는 세제상의 불이익이 발생하기 때문에 타사 제품으로 대체 변경 설치하도록 해주시기 바람. (주)한남제작 F.R.P 정화조 50ton은 1999. 8. 3. 특허증을 교부받고, 1999. 4. 7. 신기술로 인정받았기 때문에 1999. 4. 7. - 2000. 4. 7. 신기술 인정기간이며, 배출수 10ppm 이하이고, 금액이 1억 1,700만 원(부가세별도)임. 1억 1,700만 원이면 타사제품으로 신기술 제품에 해당하는 배출수 10ppm 이하 65ton을 매입할 수 있음. 폐사가 재 설계비를 부담해야 하는 실정에 있으므로 정화조 구입 시 가격을 조율할 수 있도록 해주는 것이 당연함’ 등 내용의 문서(이하 ‘이 사건 문서’라고 한다)를 작성·송부한 사실, 위 카탈로그는 제목이 ‘삼성담체 +한남PVA-MEDIA F.R.P 오수처리시설’인데, 내용에 ‘미분활성탄이 폴리우레탄폼에 코팅된 다공성 구조의 유기물 제거용 담체(BioCAP)’와 ‘다공성 PVA폼 질산화용 담체(BioPOP )’를 단독 또는 공용으로 포기조에 투입하여 유기물 및 질소를 제거하는 이 사건 기술의 과학적 원리에 관한 설명과 이 사건 기술의 신기술지정증서, 삼성엔지니어링이 개발하여 1999. 4. 7. 과학기술부장관으로부터 국산신기술인정을 받은 ‘친수성 질산화 수처리용 PVA 담체기술’(이하 ‘과학기술부 인정 신기술’이라고 한다)에 관한 국산신기술인정서, 위 회사가 1999. 8. 3. 특허등록을 한 ‘폐수처리용 담채 및 그 제조방법’에 관한 특허증 등이 각 축소 복사되어 실려 있는 사실, 정화조에 관하여 1차 설계도면에는 ‘SM 담체 포기조’ 등으로, 설계내역서에는 ‘정화조 설치공사 50톤’으로, 시방서에는 ‘오배수 통기관 배관공사’로 각 표현되어 있는 사실, 위 공소외 3은 2002. 7. 10., 공소외 4는 2002. 9. 30. 각 성원건설에서 퇴사한 사실, 공소외 1은 이 사건 문서를 받고 곧바로 위 공소외 2를 불러 이 사건 기술이 신기술인지 여부에 관하여 확인을 한 사실, 국산신기술 제1088호, 환경신기술 제46호 등의 인정을 받고 배출 수 BOD 10㎎/ℓ, SS 10㎎/ℓ 이하, 65㎥/일인 위 회사의 정화조의 2002. 8.경 월간 거래가격은 1억 1,741만 원(부가세 별도)인 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이 사건 문서가 공소외 1 및 보성군 관계자 외에 타인에게 전파된 자료는 보이지 아니한다.

2. Examining each of the grounds of appeal in light of the aforementioned legal principles and facts.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

As seen earlier, the document of this case is the purport that the document of this case is “(D.R.P septicon) manufactured in South Korea after the period of recognition of new technology is longer than the new technology, and it is not a new technology, and it makes it possible to substitute it with other products because the sale price is high.” As seen earlier, it does not undermine social trust in the payment ability or payment intent of the construction of the building that sells the above septic tank.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legal interest in the crime of undermining credit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by deeming the content of the document of this case as "the credit which is the object of the crime of undermining credit." The ground of appeal on this point is with merit

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the facts established above, upon the completion of the document of this case, Nonindicted 3, 4, etc. already withdrawn from the above Nonindicted 2, who explained the technology of this case from the above Nonindicted 2, and the design purification work of the first design is "50 tons of the purification work" in the design specification, and the specifications are merely expressed as "the installation work of septic tanks", and the contents of the above carcs are not easily understood as non-professionals when explaining the scientific principles of the technology of this case, and it is sufficient to conclude that the new technology of this case was prepared in the new technology of this case, such as "PVA, fences, wastewater treatment", the contents of the document of this case, "BOPP", and the new technology of this case, such as "BOPP", are identical or similar to the expressions of the "SM fences" in the design specification, and it is sufficient to view that the defendant was not aware that the above new technology of this case was sent in the same way as the new technology of this case.

Therefore, the court below's finding that "the defendant received a report from the non-indicted 3 and 4 who is an employee of the defendant, and received a report from the non-indicted 3 and 4 and delivered the above document containing false information to the non-indicted 1 although he was well aware of the co-offender of the technology of this case," was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument in the grounds of appeal

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the facts acknowledged above, the owner of the instant construction project, Nonindicted Party 1, the designer, and the Defendant are the representative director of the Sungwon Construction who will perform construction and bear design costs in accordance with the design of Nonindicted Party 1, and the instant document has mutual interests surrounding the instant construction project. In relation to the part of the instant document, “the period for recognition of new technology of this case has expired,” which is different from the facts, as the designer at the request of the above Nonindicted Party 2, was the content of the instant document, the document of this case, “the period for recognition of new technology of this case has expired.” The document of this case can be corrected by itself or immediately by Nonindicted Party 1, which was reflected in the first design of this case, and was easily confirmed and corrected by Nonindicted Party 2, which was reflected in the instant technology of this case in the first design. Since there was no data that is different from the facts in the instant document, it is difficult to conclude that there was a possibility of dissemination to many and unspecified persons or that there was a possibility of dissemination to the Defendant.

Therefore, the court below's finding that "the delivery of this case to Non-Indicted 1 by the defendant is likely to be disseminated to many and unspecified persons" is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)