(Defamation) Loss of credit;

Seoul Residence

Seoul basic domicile

1. A crime on April 6, 2009;

The defendant, around April 6, 200, around 00 00 - 000 - 000000, about 2000, 2000, 200, 200, 300,000, 300,000, 20 were lawfully obtained a new manufacture license as first, 300,000, 200, and 200,000, 300,000,000, 300,000,000, 2000,000, 200,000, 200,000, 200,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

Although the judgment of the above civil procedure clearly revealed that "the first manufacture license was illegally acquired as in the second place", since the civil procedure concerned is a claim for damages filed in the second place, it cannot be directly revoked the manufacture license, it will be made complete withdrawal in the market through the administrative procedure in the future, and it will be made a serious reprimand against the related persons who have committed the illegal act. The recent "the first" was taken over in the second place, but this is related to the illegality of the first place, as it is related to the "the first place", the distribution of illegal products cannot be absolutely used, so even if the company was changed, the distribution of illegal products should be withdrawn in the market even before the administrative measure is taken. The "the public perusal of the above writing by many unspecified persons," thereby revealing false facts openly through information and communications networks, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim, and impairing the victim's credit.

2. A crime on June 1, 2009;

At the same place as the preceding paragraph of June 1, 2009, the Defendant does not first manufacture the subject matter as in the manner of purifying contaminated water, such as livestock excreta and waste water, and can use it as food manufacturing and processing water even for contaminated water.

Despite the fact that there is no fact finding it, for the purpose of slandering the victim, 'the Internet site,' next 'Sara 'Sara' was first created by purifying and selling the processed water of the subject, ‘the first sale of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter, ‘the first sale of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter from February 16, 2006, ‘the first sale of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter, ‘the first sale of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the subject matter of the notification of the subject matter of the subject matter of the notification of the subject matter of the notification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the prosecutor's office concerning the steering / Kim Jong-hwan;

1. 각 고소장, 무릎팍도사 동영상 화면, 손해배상 제1심 판결문, 질의서, 통보서, 블루데이 댓글, 불기소이유 통지서, 재정신청 결정문, 각 아고라 게시물, 피톤씨 광고물, 처음처럼 축출 협조요청서 및 회신, 시사저널 기사 및 정정게시물, 일요신문 기사, 각 참고자료 제출, 알칼리환원수의 제품 적용사례, 알칼리환원수 안전성 근거자료, 처음처럼 관련 허위사실 유포 사례, 각 수사보고 ( 인터넷 게시글 확인, 고소인 참고자료 제출, 피의자 고소고발 진정사건 확인, 처음처럼 제조방법 승인 관련 정리표 ), 인터넷 화면 프린트, 민원인의 법률지식 보유 및 사적 영리 목적, 약식명령, 사건검색화면 프린트, 각 불기소이유 통지서, 불법식품 신고 ( 처음처럼 ), 증인신문조서, 수질검사성적서, 서면증언 , 고소대리인 의견서, 공개질의 통보서, 손해배상 제2심 판결문, 손해배상 제3심 판결문 , 손해배상 파기환송심 판결문, 손해배상 파기환송 후 상고심 판결문, 고소대리인 참고자 유죄 이유

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. On January 12, 2006, 2006, 2006, 2006. The Korea Food and Drug Administration made inquiries as to whether the alkyllogic can be used as the manufacturing water of the trademark "(hereinafter referred to as "the subject subject subject matter of this case") by attaching the water quality inspection report to the owner of the trademark "the first time."

B. On January 19, 2006, the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration sent a reply to the purport that "it shall be used as water for manufacturing and processing food if it meets the water quality standards stipulated in Article 2 (1) and attached Table 1 of the Regulations on Standards and Inspection of Drinking Water, which is Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and " drinking water under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Drinking Water Management Act".

C. On January 31, 2006, the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office approved the new manufacturing method related to the instant subject matter to the two Busan District District Tax Office, and on March 3, 2006, the two Busan District Tax Office launched the instant subject matter of lawsuit.

D. On May 4, 2006, the defendant asked the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration and the Minister of Environment as to whether the use of the alkyllogic returned water that has undergone the process of electric decomposition as a water for manufacturing the alkyllogic, in light of the food code and the relevant provisions of the Drinking Water Management Act, etc. The Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration

In the event that "the water quality standards under Article 2 (1) and attached Table 1 of the Regulations on Standards and Inspection of Drinking Water, which are Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment processed through electrical decomposition, meet the standards for water quality, and the drinking water under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Drinking Water Management Act, the defendant sent a reply to the purport that "the drinking water can be used as water for manufacturing and processing food," and the Minister of Environment sent a reply to the purport that "the level of hydrogen ion of drinking water was modified by electrical decomposition" on May 10, 2006, even if the level of hydrogen ion of drinking water was modified by electric decomposition, it can be viewed as water suitable for drinking if it satisfies the standards for the quality of drinking water under Article 2 (1) of the Regulations on Standards and Inspection of Drinking Water."

E. On July 26, 2006, the defendant asked the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration about whether the alknife recovery amounted to the Korea Food and Drug Administration, which had undergone the process of electrical decomposition, was suitable for the food manufacturing and processing water under the Food Sanitation Act. On August 7, 2006, the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration asked the Ministry of Environment about the matters related thereto. Accordingly, the Ministry of Environment, in the Korea Food and Drug Administration, may regard groundwater meeting the natural water quality standards in nature, as natural water in ordinary use under the Drinking Water Management Act, and the groundwater treated to meet the water quality standards, does not fall under the "water in natural state" and "drinking water", and the term "drinking water" does not fall under the "water in natural state, such as underground water inside rocks or spring water, which is manufactured to make it fit for the safety of water quality, such as physical treatment of water in natural state, which can continue to be maintained, so if the process of electrical decomposition is applied."

F. On August 25, 2006, the Korea Food and Drug Administration sent a reply to the Defendant to the Ministry of Environment on September 1, 2006, and on September 1, 2006, the Defendant determined that the matters concerning the water treatment process for manufacturing and processing food should be governed by the Food Sanitation Act, and the Food Sanitation Act does not separately provide or limit the water treatment method for manufacturing water and does not impose restrictions on the drinking water under the provisions of Article 5 of the Drinking Water Management Act, so it is currently usable as food manufacturing and processing water for beverages and liquors.

G. On August 23, 2006, the National Tax Service Technical Research Institute, on the Defendant’s inquiry, stated that the Defendant’s inquiry was “Unless the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Safety Office interpreted that the pertinent water was harmful to the Food Sanitation Act,” and that the water quality inspection report meeting the water quality standards under Article 2 of the Regulations on the Water Quality Standards and Inspection, etc. of Drinking Water attached to a stock company and the water quality inspection report meeting the water quality standards under Article 2 of the Rules on the Water Quality Standards and Inspection, etc. of Drinking Water was sent to the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration on January 19, 2006.”

H. On January 23, 2007, the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration requested the Ministry of Government Legislation to interpret the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and received the result thereof, and if the defendant satisfies the quality standards for drinking water under Article 5 of the Drinking Water Management Act regardless of whether it falls under " drinking water under Article 3 of the same Act", the Commissioner may use it as manufacturing water for food under Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act.

I. The Defendant filed an application for provisional disposition against 208Kahap2804, Seoul Central District Court on the ground that the acquisition of the manufacture license for 2008Kahap2804, the Defendant applied for provisional disposition against 200, but the above court dismissed the Defendant’s application on the ground that the acquisition of the manufacture license for 200 on October 15, 2008 of the Food Sanitation Act was in accordance with Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, and the manufacturing license does not fall under “ drinking water” under the Drinking Water Management Act, and that the manufacturing license does not fall under “drinking water” under Article 5 of the Drinking Water Management Act. As long as the water quality meets the water quality standards under Article 5 of the Drinking Water Management Act, it is difficult to view that there

(j) On January 14, 2008, the Defendant published the title “(s)” written public questioning on the illegal licensing of the owner of the instant lawsuit, such as the first two islands, and on March 7, 2008, on March 7, 2008, the Defendant published the title “(s)” but the title “the National Tax Service has to be abandoned by such public officials.” The purpose of each of the above text was that the Defendant’s license for manufacturing the instant novel using the alknuri number was illegal.

C. On March 18, 2008, 2000, the reporter of the daily newspaper Seoul, Inc., coverage against the Defendant, and published the same article as shown in attached Table 2 in the daily newspaper of March 18, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, the Defendant posted the above article on the Defendant’s Internet screen.

C. Accordingly, two mountain companies filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking damages of 500 million won on the ground that the writing in the attached Forms 1 and 2 above was prejudicial to the honor and credit of two corporations. On March 25, 2009, the court of first instance declared that the defendant's above act was detrimental to the reputation and credit of two corporations, but in light of the circumstances as to the circumstances leading up to the above act and the contents and method of expression, etc. of the defendant's act for public interest, it is deemed that the defendant's act for the above act was at least for the purpose of public interest and that there is a considerable reason to believe that its contents are true, and thus, the court dismissed the claim of two mountain companies (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da39293).

(m) On April 6, 2009, after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Defendant, as indicated in attached Form 3, mainly contents of the facts identical to those of the above criminal facts, as stated in paragraph (1) of the above criminal facts, stated in attached Table 3, stating that “No. 3 should be immediately withdrawn for the first time as manufactured: “No. 4; No. 4, around June 1, 2009; and No. 4, which is mainly contents of the facts identical to paragraph (2) of the above criminal facts, was inserted in “Sara, each website,” and the Defendant first inserted the title “.”

D. The judgment of the court of first instance on December 9, 2009 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na35318) declared that the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, participated in the plaintiff's succession, but (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, the plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff, the plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff, the plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff, the plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff, the plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succession (the plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's 3, 4, 4, and 5318). The judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's succeeding plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding's succeeding's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's succeeding's succeeding's succeeding's

The judgment of the above appellate court was rendered on the ground that the judgment of the appellate court was omitted due to the omission of the judgment on the notice as shown in the attached Forms 3 and 4 (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8365).

E. After remanding the case, the appellate court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Defendant shall be liable for damages of KRW 20 million on the grounds that the notice as shown in [Attachment 3 and 4] attached on March 29, 201 damaged the honor and credit of alcoholic beverage base corporation (Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na46178)” (Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na46178), and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court on August 25, 201, but the judgment to dismiss the appeal became final and conclusive on August 25, 201 (Supreme Court Decision 201Da40540).

2. As seen earlier, the following facts recognized by the facts of recognition and the evidence listed above, i.e., the final view of the Korea Food and Drug Safety Agency of Ministry of Government Legislation and Food with respect to approval of new manufacturing methods for the instant tenant, is unlawful on the sole basis of the fact that the alkin water treated through the electrical decomposition process, which is the manufacturing water of this case, meets the quality standards for drinking water under Article 5 of the Drinking Water Management Act, without relation to whether it falls under the " drinking water under Article 3 of the Drinking Water Management Act", and without relation to whether it falls under the " drinking water" under Article 5 of the same Act, if it satisfies the quality standards for drinking water under Article 5 of the same Act.

고 볼 수 없다는 취지로 판시하였을 뿐만 아니라, 「 식품위생법시행규칙 」 제40조 ( 식품 및 식품첨가물의 제조 또는 가공업자의 준수사항 ) 별표 제12는 ' 수돗물이 아닌 지하수 등 ) 을 먹는물 또는 식품의 제조 · 가공 등에 사용하는 때에는 「 먹는물관리법 제43조에 따른 먹는물 수질검사기관에서 1년 ( 음료류 등 마시는 용도의 식품이 경우에는 6월 ) 마다 「 먹는물관리법 」 제5조에 따른 먹는물의 수질기준에 따라 검사를 받아 마시기에 적합하다는 인정된 물을 사용하여야 한다 ' 라고 규정하고 있고, 「 먹는물관리법 시행령 ( 2005. 7. 22. 대통령령 제18953호로 개정된 것 ) 제3조 ( 샘물개발허가대상 ) 제1 항 제2호는 ' 1일 취수능력 300톤 이상의 샘물 ( 원수의 일부를 청량음료 · 주류 등의 원료로 사용하는 경우를 포함한다 ) 을 개발하고자 하는 자 ' 로 규정하고 있는바, 이에 비추어 보면, 「 먹는물관리법 ( 2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7463호로 개정된 것 ) 제3조 1호에 규정된 ' 먹는물 ' 인 ' 먹는데 통상 사용하는 자연상태의 물 ', ' 자연상태의 물을 먹는데 적합하게 처리한 수돗물 ', ' 먹는 샘물 ' 에 해당하지 않는다 하더라도 위 「 먹는물관리법 」 제5조에 따른 먹는물의 수질기준에 적합하다면 「 식품위생법 」 제7조의 규정에 의한 식품의 제조용수로 사용할 수 있다고 봄이 상당한 점, 주식회사 두산이 이 사건 소주의 제조에 사용하는 이른바 ' 알칼리환원수 ' 는 「 먹는물관리법 」 제3조 제2호 소정의 ' 샘물 ( 암반대 수층안의 자하수 또는 용천수 등 수질의 안전성을 계속 유지할 수 있는 자연상태의 깨끗한 물을 먹는 용도로 사용하기 위한 원수 ) ' 또는 ' 먹는샘물 ( 샘물을 먹는데 적합하도록 물리적 처리 등의 방법으로 제조한 물 ) ' 을 전기분해과정을 거쳐 수소이온농도 ph8. 0 ~ ph8. 5까지 상승시킨 것인바, 「 먹는물관리법 」 제5조 제3항 및 「 수도법 」 제26조 제2항에 따른 먹는물의 수질기준을 정하고 있는 환경부령인 「 먹는물수질기준및검사등 에관한규칙 ( 2005. 7. 22. 환경부령 제179호로 개정된 것 ) 제2조의 별표 1은 미생물 , 건강상 유해영향 무기물질 · 유기물질 · 소독제 및 소독부산물질 · 심미적 영향물질의 각종 기준에 의한 수질기준을 정하고 있는데, 그 중 수소이온농도는 ph5. 8 내지 ph8. 5이어야 하는 것으로 규정하고 있어 이 사건 소주의 제조에 사용된 ' 알칼리환원수 ' 는 수소이온농도에 있어서도 어떠한 문제가 있다고 할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 소주에 대한 제조방법승인은 적법하다고 할 것인 점, ② 나아가 위 손해배상소송의 1심판결 역시 이 사건 소주에 대한 제조방법승인이 불법이라고 명확히 판시한 바 없을 뿐만 아니라 피고인은 이를 잘 알고 있었음에도 불구하고 제1심 판결이 선고된 이후인 2009. 4. 6. 경 별지 3 기재 글에서 ' 불법 제조된 이 사건 소주는 즉시 퇴출되어야 한다 ' 고 제목을 기재하고 ' 이 사건 소주는 제조면허 취득과정에서 당시의 식품관련 법령을 위반한 사실이 최근 관련 재판에서 명확하게 입증되었다 ', ' 상기 민사소송의 판결로 이 사건 소주의 제조면허가 불법 취득된 것이 명확하게 밝혀졌으나, 해당 민사소송은 두 산에서 제소한 손해배상청구 사건이므로 직접적으로 제조면허를 취소시킬 수는 없고 , 앞으로 행정적인 절차를 거쳐 시장에서 완전 퇴출시켜야 하며 불법을 행한 관련자들에게 일벌백계로 엄중한 문책을 행하여야 될 것이다 ' 라고 기재하여 허위의 사실을 적시하고 제1심 판결의 내용을 왜곡한 점, ③ 또한 피고인은 별지 3, 4 기재 글에서 위 손해배상소송의 제1심판결이 ' 피고 ( 피고인 ) 가 자신의 인터넷 블로그에 올린 글은 진실에 부합하지 않은 허위의 사실을 게재한 것이라고 볼 수는 없고 ' 라고 판시한 것으로 기재 하였으나, 위와 같은 판시 내용은 피고인이 자신의 블로그에 올린 별지 1, 2 기재 글 중에서 일부인 ' 전기분해 한 물은 미세하다 하더라도 화학적으로 변화된 물이다 ', ' 전기분해 한 물이 인체에 어떤 영향을 미치게 될지 확실하게 연구된 바가 없다 ' 등의 표현에 국한되는 것일 뿐 피고인이 별지 1, 2 기재 글 중 ' 주식회사 두산이 이 사건 소주에 대한 제조면허를 불법으로 취득하였다 ' 라는 취지로 기재한 부분에 대한 판단이 아니어서 이 역시 위 제1심 판결을 왜곡한 점, ④ 피고인은 2009. 5. 12. 경 주식회사 롯데주 류비지에게 ' 축산분뇨, 오폐수, 독극물로 인체에 심각하게 오염된 물을 먹는물 수질기준에 적합하도록 정수처리하면서 식품제조 및 가공용 용수로 사용할 수 있다고 판단하는지 ' 를 질의하면서 이에 대한 회신이 없다는 이유로 ( 수사기록 59쪽 ) 2009. 6. 1. 경 위 범죄사실 제2항과 같은 사실을 주요한 내용으로 하는 별지 4 기재 글에 ' 롯데, 이 사건 소주 똥물을 정수해서 만들어도 된단다 ' 라고 기재함으로써 주식회사 롯데주류비지가 언급한 바 없는 내용을 마치 언급한 것처럼 적시하거나, 피고인의 위와 같은 질의에 회신하지 않는 것은 주식회사 롯데주류비지가 축산분뇨, 오폐수, 독극물로 인체에 심각하게 오염된 물을 먹는물 수질기준에 적합하도록 정수처리하면서 식품제조 및 가공용 용수로 사용할 수 있음을 인정하는 것인양 적시한 점, ⑤ 또한 별지 4 기재 글에도 ' 이 사건 소주가 불법으로 제조면허를 취득한 것이다 ' 라고 허위의 사실을 기재하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 별지 4 기재 글은 위와 같은 글을 접하는 인터넷 이용자들의 관점에서 볼 때 전체적으로 이 사건 소주의 제조에 사용되는 ' 알칼리환원수 ' 가 ' 축산분뇨, 오폐수나 인체에 심각하게 영향을 미치는 독극물로 오염된 물이지만 먹는물 수질기준에 적합하도록 정수처리 된 물 ' 과 사실상 다를 바 없다는 취지로 읽혀져 일반소비자들에게 이 사건 소주의 위생 및 안전성에 의문을 일으키는 점, ⑥ 피고인의 별지 3, 4 기재 글로 인해 주식회사 롯데주류비지의 명예와 신용이 훼손되었음을 이유로 주식회사 롯데주류 비지에 대한 손해배상을 명하는 판결 ( 서울고등법원 2010나46178 판결 ) 이 선고된 이후에도 피고인은 트위터 등을 통해 ' 이 사건 소주에 대한 제조방법승인이 불법하게 이루어졌다 ' 또는 ' 이 사건 소주는 알칼리수를 사용한 불법제품입니다 ' 라는 취지의 허위의 사실을 적시한 글을 계속적으로 게시한 점 등의 여러 사정들을 종합적으로 고려하여 보면, 위 각 범죄사실 기재와 같은 피고인의 정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법 률위반 ( 명예훼손 ) 및 신용훼손의 범행을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있고, 따라서 이와 다른 견지에서 피고인이 게시한 별지 3, 4 기재 글은 피고인의 의견이나 평가를 표현할 것일 뿐만 아니라 사실의 적시라 하더라도 허위의 사실을 적시한 것이 아니고 이는 공공의 이익을 위한 것으로 피고인에게 비방의 목적이 없다거나, 별지 3, 4 기재 글의 게시행위는 형법 제20조의 정당행위로서 사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 행위이므로 위법성이 조각되어 무죄라는 피고인 및 그 변호인의 주장은 이를 모두 받아들이지 아니한다 .

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and Article 313 of the Criminal Act

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

As seen earlier, even if the defendant is sufficiently convicted of each of the crimes of this case as seen earlier, the defendant's mistake is not divided, and the defendant's honor and credit was damaged due to the article 3 and 4 attached hereto, and the defendant's judgment ordering compensation for damages as to the lot lot, corporation, etc. (Seoul High Court Decision 201046178) was issued, the defendant, through Twitter, etc., issued an unlawful approval for the manufacturing method of this case, or "the illegally used the alknife of the owner of this case" used the alknife," and the defendant appears to have been sentenced to the punishment of the defendant for the violation of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that he illegally manufactured and sold the liquor of this case with the approval of the representative director of the lot lot, and the defendant's crime of this case appears to have been committed by the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant's name and credit of the lot lot and the defendant were damaged, as well as the fact that the defendant did not suffer from the same type of punishment as the Food Sanitation Act.