2010No115 A. Defamation

(b) Interference with business;

1. A. B. ○○

Seoul Residence

Reference domicile Incheon

2. (a) Na. ○○

Seoul Residence

Masan City in original domicile

Prosecutor Lee Nam-soo

Attorney Shin Chang-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant (a private election for the defendants)

Law Firm (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC)

Attorney Han-soo, Justice Han-soo, Justice Kim Il-chul, and President

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Dadan2960 Decided January 7, 2010

June 17, 2010

The main appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

The defendants' contents of the broadcast of this case are false; (1) Of them, the part of metal scrap powder caused by debrison, among which the defendants were found to be false through ① explanation by the victim corporation ○○○ (hereinafter "victim corporation") and criminal complaints, and an application for provisional injunction against broadcast; (4) if the contents of the report are inconsistent with the initial coverage direction, the obligation to investigate the press is aggravated; and if the defendants extended only one week of the first broadcast of this case, it could be known that the contents of the above broadcast were false as a result of analysis by the KAC. In light of the fact that the defendants did not confirm the fact that they did not export overseas; and (2) in light of the fact that the defendants did not confirm whether the contents of the broadcast of this case were true, the damages suffered by the victim corporation due to the broadcast of this case; and (4) The second broadcast of this case seems to have been reported with malicious purpose of the victim corporation's application for provisional injunction against broadcast, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above contents of the report.

2. The facts charged in this case

Defendant ○○ is a responsible professional producer for 'OO PD’’’’s consumer accusation program for the Korea Broadcasting System (KBS). Defendant Ananon is a professional producer in charge of the fields of women, medicine, etc. of the said program. Defendant is also a person who coverage and progress the said program together.

A. On October 22, 2007, from around 00 to 22:30 of the same day, the Defendants broadcasted the following contents through the program “○○ consumer complaint by the Korean Broadcasting System located in the Handodong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.” The Defendants broadcasted the products of the companies manufacturing and selling yellow factoring, including the victim corporation ○○, by detecting heavy metal in the shock ambing amben amb, and the product of the companies manufacturing and selling yellow factoring (referring to the metal scrap, which is a foreign substance introduced from outside in the process of manufacturing yellow factoring, rather than the unique ingredients of yellow sand).

이○○ : “ 우리는 취재 중 황토팩에는 중금속 이외에 여러분이 생각하지 못한 다른 이물질이 들어 있다는 사실을 알게 됐습니다. 안OO PD의 황토팩 다정체 밝히기는 계속됩니다. 안○○ PD입니다. ” 안○○ : “ 황토를 채취하고 나서 팩으로 만들기 위해서는 반드시 거쳐야 할 과정이 있습니다. 바로 이 미세한 분말로 분쇄하는 과정입니다. 이 과정에서 쇳가루가 들어간다고 합니다. … 중략 … 제조과정에서 이 쇳가루는 제거하기 힘든 것일까 ? … 중략 … 이런 미세한 쇳가루는 모공을 막아 피부염증을 일으킬 수도 있다고 합니다. ” 이○○ : “ 앞에서 보신 안OO PD의 황토팩에서 중금속 검출 내용 중 황토팩이 자석에 덕지덕지 달라붙는 모습은 가히 충격적이었습니다. 중금속만큼 해 롭지는 않겠지만 그렇게 많은 쇳가루가 들어 있다니 피부에 바르기 찜찜합니다. ” 이승연 : “ 유독 황토팩 가루에 쇳가루가 섞여 있는 건 왜 그런 걸까요 ? 혹시 황토 자체에 쇳가루가 있는 건 아닐까요 ? 역시 저희가 실험을 통해 알아보도록 하겠습니다. … 중략 … 자연산 황토에는 쇳가루가 포함되지 않은 걸 볼 수가 있습니다. 다만 앞서 보신 대로 황토팩을 갈 때 쇠볼 ( 쇠구슬 )

use and entry of metal in this process. Of the foregoing, metal scrap shall be entered.

A. The broadcast content, as seen above, includes metal scrap dust in a yellow factoring product, which is used in the process of crushing yellow soil. This metal scrap was generated due to the hurf of the hurf in the hurf in the hurf, which is used in the process of crushing yellow soil. The content of the broadcast is that, if the hurf was different from the hurf of the hurf in the hurf.

그러나 황토팩 제품에서 검출된 검은색 자성체 ( 위 방송에서는 ' 쇳가루 ' 라고 표현 ) 는 황토팩 제조과정 중 외부에서 유입된 것이 아닌, 황토 고유의 성분 중 하나인 자철석 ( Fe₃O4 ) 이며 한방의학에서 광물약으로도 사용되는 철성분으로서 자연광물이다 .

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendants explained on September 2007, which was coverage for the above broadcast from Y○○, a staff member of the victim company, included the red tin and shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot, a representative director of the victim company and the above shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot. On October 3, 2007, the victim company

4. Date of the preliminary injunction (2007Kahap2853) filed with the Seoul Southern District Court on the date of examination of the case (2007Kahap2853)

10. 5. 10: 30- 11: 40) was pointed out that the victim company received an objection from the victim company to the effect that the color-oriented body was not introduced from the outside in the process of manufacturing yellow factoring, not only one of the unique ingredients of yellow soil, but also does not harm the human body, and it should not be broadcasted as if there is a problem from the presiding judge in charge of the above provisional disposition case.

Therefore, even though the Defendants knew the fact that the above autopsy body was the unique ingredients of yellow soil itself, not the foreign substance which was flown out of the outside, the Defendants conspired with each other, and thus, the Defendant’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts by openly broadcasting that is a foreign substance which was flown out of the outside during the process of manufacturing yellow factoring. 2) From November 22, 2007 to 22:0 on the same day, the Defendants broadcasted the following contents in the office of the Korean Broadcasting System through the program “Korea Broadcasting System’s consumer complaint in OOPD’s office” from around 00 to 30 on the same day.

This ○○: “When you show the metal scrap which is contained in the natural environment, whether or not consumers have purchased the product? Many consumers have detected and fluored the metal scrap using a seat in the house. After broadcasting, most companies have recognized the fact that the metal scrap was emitted in the process of crushing. They are supplying a product with no metal scrap without using a hacks and using the air powder method to prevent mixing of metal. However, one company is completely denying the confidentiality of this metal. It is hard to say that 0% of the metal scrap will be mixed with 0% of the metal scrap in the process of crushinging it. It is hard to say that 0% of the metal scrap will be removed.”

However, as seen in the above 1) above, color chronology is one of the unique components of yellow soil itself with chronite, and natural minerals used as mineral medicine in Hanbio medicine.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired in collusion to the effect that the victim company’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts by broadcasting the metal scrap, which was released from the outside by the shot chain, etc. in the process of manufacturing the yellow factoring. 3) The Defendants broadcasted to the effect that, in the same program, the victim company did not export the yellow factoring products to foreign countries on the basis of the following: (a) the date and time and place as set forth in the above A-2-3); (b) the overseas export and fact-finding of one company; and (c) the same program “one company’s overseas export and fact-finding”; and (d) the content of the interview with Japan and Taiwan Home shopping-related parties.

However, from February 2006 to August 2007, the victim company exported yellow factoring products to the United States, Japan, Taiwan, etc.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired to confirm the facts of exports of the victim company through official confirmation of the Korea Customs Service, trade associations, etc., but without such confirmation, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim company by openly pointing out false facts by publicly pointing out the fact that the victim company did not export sulfur products to foreign countries.

(b) Point of interference with business;

Defendants conspired to act on October 22, 2007: from 00 to 22:30 on the same day, and November 9 of the same year.

22: From 00 to 22:30 on the same day, the Korean Broadcasting System broadcast the content that, through the program, “○○○ consumer complaint against the Defendant” was introduced from outside in the process of manufacturing yellow factoring, as described in the above A. broadcast that the Defendant had not exported yellow factoring products to a foreign country.

However, as described in paragraph (a) above, i.e., sulfurs are unique ingredients of yellow soil itself, not foreign substances introduced from outside in the process of manufacturing yellow factoring, but natural minerals used as mineral drugs. The victim company knew or could have known that it exported yellow factoring products from February 2, 2006 to August 2007 to the United States, Japan, and Taiwan.

After all, the Defendants conspired and broadcasted the following false contents: (a) the victim company did not export sulfur products to a foreign country; and (b) made it impossible for the victim company to produce and sell sulfur factoring products per year, thereby spreading false facts; and (c) interfered with the business of manufacturing and selling sulfur products of the victim company by spreading false facts.

3. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the contents of the broadcast of this case, excluding the part that self-definites are harmful to the human body, were all false, but there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendants did not make false facts or false facts are true, and thus, the illegality of the broadcast of this case is excluded under

4. Basic facts.

A. The production of 'EO PD Consumer Complaint Program', including the Defendants, was made on April 2007.

3. The news gathering was commenced after it was decided to cover "whether or not heavy metals are included in the sulfur factoring products", and the heavy metal of the sulfurous material from the Korea Basic Science Support Institute around August 9, 2007 and September 2007 was notified of the results of the inspection that the heavy metal of the sulfurous material is below the base value (product standard) or that of the sulfur factoring is above.

B) On September 5, 2007 and September 6, 2007, during the process of gathering yellow pules from a yellow pulos manufacturing company, the Defendant ○○ viewed that, in the process of crushinging yellow soil by using a hulball in the process of gathering the aforesaid coverage, humball was fluent in the end of the puled yellow sand, and humbing off a large quantity of humbing materials into the yellow sand. After that, the Defendant ○○ may be mixed with yellow sand in the process of crushinging humball from a specialized company for yellow pulverization.

B) At the end of June 2007, the Defendants inspected the nature of sulfur ingredients through special equipment, along with ○ University chemistry and 000, a professor, ○○○, a yellow soil expert. There was no stimulation in sulfur ingredients. The Defendants sent a stimulation of sulfur packaging products in the market at the time. While a stimulation was detected in sulfur packaging products manufactured by the stimulation method, the stimulation was detected, but the stimulation was not detected in the products manufactured by the stimulation method.

C) On September 2007, the Defendants told that the hackbrug manufacturer, a hackbrug manufacturer, entering a hackbrusher from the Korean mechanical engineering chain, would be a hacker.

D) The Defendants requested the Korea Basic Science Support Institute to analyze the ingredients of stimulants found in the yellow factoring products, and received notification of 70% of the stimulative stimulants around October 3, 2007.

3) On September 19, 2007, the Defendant Ansan○ visited the victim company and confirmed that the victim company adopts the method of pulverization. At the time, the head of the quality control division of the victim company showed that the victim company carried a flaver to remove the scrap generated in the process of yellow sand, but the flaver did not completely remove the scrap.

B) Although the Defendant requested the victim company to inform the place of gathering sand, the Defendant was rejected.

C) The Defendants were denied the request for an interview to the victim company on October 1, 2007 and October 2, 2002, prior to the instant broadcast.

B. On September 28, 2007, the Defendants explained to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office that they will broadcast the first broadcast of this case (2) around October 2, 2007 that the Defendants, an employee of the victim company, were able to use the second broadcast of this case. The Defendant, on October 2, 2007, explained to the Defendants that the second broadcast of this case was 'Pulan', not 'Pulan' but 'Pulan'. At the time of the first broadcast, the Defendants explained to the Defendants that the second broadcast of this case was 'Pulan'. At that time, the Defendant did not provide separate explanation of 'Pulan' and 'Pulan', or did not mention 'Pulan'. The Defendant rejected the second broadcast of this case, which was 00 Seoul Southern District Court's 20th broadcast content of this case, and the Defendant did not contain 'Pulan's 20th broadcast content of this case.

C. On October 5, 2007, the Defendants focused on the first broadcast of this case and the second broadcast of this case (the first broadcast of this case and the second broadcast of this case). Moreover, the Defendants broadcasted the contents on the detection of metal scrap containing the contents of this part of the charges, such as this part of the charges, and broadcasted the contents on the detection of metal scrap containing the first broadcast of this case on October 12, 2007.

2) After the first broadcast of the instant case, the Defendants examined the documents related to yellow dust, and most literature were stated in most literature that, in short, the iron (Fe2O), as the constituent elements of yellow dust (Fe2O), in short, the scrap metal is not self-concepted. However, the scrap metal is not self-concept.

B) On November 2007, the Defendants stated that the general yellow soil from 00 Ma○ Professor on early 1, 2007 includes a file of stein ingredients, and that if there is a stein stone on the sulfur material used as a cosmetic, it should be removed.

C) The Defendants may include self-defluences in yellow soil materials from companies manufacturing 'Good Soil Co., Ltd.'. However, 'self-defluences' should be removed because 'self-defluences' are 'non-defluences' to be removed, and can be easily removed by a method of damp-fluence, and due to concerns of mixing of metal scraps, the Defendants were given an explanation that they use gravel-fluences.

In addition, the defendants provided an explanation that "the defendants are using air bags because the metal scrap is likely to be mixed with each other from the "Yatop Manufacturing Business Co., Ltd.".

D) The Defendants were given an explanation to the effect that each of the above goods is consumed when using a hives pulse pulse pulse pulver from “Korea Sector Co., Ltd., a manufacturing company of the humball culvers” (Baner) and the inside surface of the pulvers (Baner).

3) After the first broadcast of this case, the victim company published an advertisement or sent a notice on this content to consumers, such as Japan, through GS home shopping, “The products of the victim company are exported to foreign countries through GS home shopping.” The victim company started to indicate the company’s toward the column of “e-CHNNNNAL by restructuring the victim company’s website. At the time, the history column was posted in the victim company’s website.

나 ) 피고인들은 피해자 회사의 홈페이지에 나타난 대만 동삼 ( 東森 ) 홈쇼핑 및 일본 QVC 홈쇼핑을 상대로 인터뷰를 하였는데, 위 대만 홈쇼핑 관계자로부터 ' 현재 피해자 회사 황토팩 제품과 같은 브랜드를 들어본 적이 없고, 지금은 판매되고 있지 않는 것 같다 ' 는 답변을, 위 일본 홈쇼핑 관계자로부터 ' 피해자 회사 황토팩 제품은 2006. 8 .

4. Finally, the answer was made that the broadcast was made, that was not sold after the last year, and that the additional entry plan was not determined.

C) In addition, the Defendants told from the person related to the Japanese Ministry of Health and Safety that the rain contained in the yellow factoring should be 5 pm, and 20 pm of the lead should be 20 pm.

D) Meanwhile, since around 2002, the victim company exported goods to Japan through overseas transfer sets, and overseas transfer set up a contract with home shopping, online, or off-line companies, and then imported products from the victim company and supplied them to the said company. The victim company had exported the products to the United States and Taiwan prior to the first broadcast of this case, but the export was suspended at the time of the said broadcast.

4) The progress of the case of correction and counterargument news report claim and its process were investigated) the victim company made a request against the Korea Broadcasting System to the Press Arbitration Commission for correction and counterargument news report (2007 Seoul Coordination 402). In that process, the victim company was notified on October 11, 2007 of the fact that the victim company was found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been in the end of the sulfur products of the victim company as the result of XRD analysis on the sulfur powder in the yellow field. In this process, the victim company was notified on October 11, 2007 of the fact that the yellow powder and red iron were included at the end of the sulfur products of the products of the victim company, but the substances with self-fluence included in the yellow stone and red iron.

B) The Defendants asked the KIC about whether the test result refers to whether the combination of steel ingredients in the process of crushing is not included in the sulphical sulgic sulgic sulgic sulgic sulgic sulgic sulgs, but asked the KIC to the effect that it cannot be known due to the nature of

C) On October 23, 2007, the Press Arbitration Commission rendered a decision to accept a claim for partial counterargument news report on metal scrap.

5) When the Korea Food and Drug Administration reported on the media whether any metal scrap is mixed in the process of manufacturing yellow factoring, such as the measures taken by the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and the Korea Food and Drug Administration announced the result of quality inspection to the effect that the Korea Food and Drug Administration, in the process of crushing of manufacturing, is likely to mixing the metal scrap with each other, and that it is a plan to prepare and recommend measures to minimize the mixing of non-net substances in the manufacturing process.

D. On November 9, 2007, the victim company re-broadcasted a broadcast of heavy metal content, and of metal scrap detection and hazards, such as this part of the facts charged, and then broadcasted the results of an interview to an overseas home shopping company that sells the products of the victim company together with the caption. The victim company broadcasted this part of the facts charged.

2) The Korea Consumer Protection Board (Korea Consumer Protection Board) requested the victim company to submit yellow materials and downballs upon the consumer's request. The victim company rejected this request. 3) The CJ Home shopping contains 0.49% of the total c.i.e., sulfur in yellow factoring from the Korea Chemical Examination Institute around January 22, 2008, and most of them contain minerals containing self-rec.i.e., minerals and some metal, and contain substances determined as early as possible. 4) The Korea Broadcasting System was notified of the result of the c.i.e., the fact that the c., the victim's company was separated from yellow elements and downb.i., the victim's company's c.i., p., p.m. from ○○○○○○ University's c., the result of the c.m. inspection into the victim's company's xD test.

5) On March 26, 2008, the Korean Institute of Science and Technology established a test result that " around March 26, 2008, there is a very high possibility that metal scrap dust flowed in the process of pulverververization will be mixed with the sulverging products."

6) After the second broadcast of this case, the victim company filed a lawsuit with the Korea Broadcasting System on December 5, 2007 against the Seoul Southern District Court against the Korea Broadcasting System (Seoul Southern District Court) for the correction of the parts containing metals, ② whether heavy metal absorption is made, ③ the parts containing the provisional disposal decision, ④ the parts concerning the provisional disposal decision, and ④ the above court on May 8, 2008. As a result, the judgment citing the corrective report and the remainder of the claims was rendered. The appellate court (Seoul High Court 208451993) accepted the corrective report on April 21, 2010 and rendered a judgment citing the counterargument report on the remainder of the claims.

7) On February 6, 2009, the Defendants was notified by the KCA that as a result of the inspection by the XR method, only 10 sulfurs in circulation in the city are detected, and that shots are not entirely detected.

E. Relevant knowledge 1) The method of brush pulverization is a method of cutting off the drum drum with a large amount of brush and sulfur materials, and then crushinging the drum drums by crushing them through a brush between halls and brushes (lap). Generally, the brush drush is a brush of carbon (hetor) with the content of the brush. The brush has the character of being well attached to the brush. The brush brush is a carbon brushe, the content of which is approximately 11~14% of the brush, and has the character completely different from the brush, but has not been self-converted by external stress, such as component content or shock and brue, and then pulverizing the brut.

2) The fire fighting iron is divided into the fire fighting agents (Fe2O3, 'Fe2O3') and the fire fighting agents (Fe2O4, Sborn steel or 's 's 's 's '') in accordance with the progress of the fire fighting (fe2O3'), depending on the level of the process of the fire fighting (fe2O3), while the shot stone in general is ordinarily divided into the fire fighting agents, it is visible that the shot stone is self shot.

(B) There is a large quantity of stimulants in the general yellow soil of high quality, but there is a large quantity of stimule in the yellow soil in which stimulation has been proceeding, depending on the place of origin, and the quantity of stimule detected in sulfur products may vary depending on the kind or quality of yellow soil which is a raw material.

C) Most of the domestic literature or in this paper, yellow soil is not marked as yellow stone ingredients even after it has been measured up to 0.1% of yellow soil.

5. Judgment of the court below

A. In order for an act of impairing a person’s reputation by openly pointing out a false fact to not be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, the act of impairing a person’s reputation should be related to the public interest when objectively viewed that the alleged fact is related to the public interest, and the actor should also indicate the fact for the public interest. In addition, the publicly alleged fact or at least the actor believed that it is true, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is true and that it is true (Supreme Court Decision 94Do237 delivered on August 26, 1994).

B) In determining whether a reasonable ground exists, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as whether a prompt report is requested in light of the nature of the article, whether the Information Institute is able to believe, and whether it is easy to confirm the truth, such as face-to-face talk with the victim (Supreme Court Decision 1997

9. 30. See Supreme Court Decision 97Da24207 delivered on April 30, 200

다 ) 또한 형법 제310조에서 말하는 공공의 이익에는 널리 국가, 사회 기타 일반 다수인의 이익에 관한 것뿐만 아니라 특정 사회집단이나 그 구성원 전체의 관심과 이익에 관한 것도 포함되고, 행위자의 주요한 동기 내지 목적이 공공의 이익을 위한 것이라면 부수적으로 다른 개인적인 목적 또는 동기가 내포되어 있거나 그 표현에 있어서 다소 모욕적인 표현이 들어 있다 하더라도 형법 제310조의 적용을 배제할 수 없고 , 나아가 공인이나 공적 기관의 공적 활동 혹은 정책에 대하여는 국민의 알 권리와 다양한 사상, 의견의 교환을 보장하는 언론의 자유의 측면에서 그에 대한 감시와 비판기능 이 보장되어야 하므로 명예를 훼손당한 자가 공인인지, 그 표현이 객관적으로 국민이 알아야 할 공공성, 사회성을 갖춘 공적 관심 사안에 관한 것으로 사회의 여론형성 내지 공개토론에 기여하는 것인지, 피해자가 그와 같은 명예훼손적 표현의 위험을 자초한 것인지 여부 등의 사정도 적극 고려되어야 하므로, 이러한 공적 관심 사안에 관하여 진실하거나 진실이라고 봄에 상당한 사실을 공표한 경우에는 그것이 악의적이거나 현저히 상당성을 잃은 공격에 해당하지 않는 한 원칙적으로 공공의 이익에 관한 것이라는 증명이 있는 것으로 보아야 한다 ( 대법원 2007. 1. 26. 선고 2004도1632 판결 ) . 2 ) 판단가 ) 허위사실 적시 여부 ( 1 ) 쇳가루 유입 관련 부분 ( 가 ) 위 인정사실 특히, 원료인 황토의 종류나 품질에 따라 황토팩 제품에서 검출되는 자철석의 양이 달라질 수 있는 점 및 ' 황토팩 속에 외부에서 유입된 물질이 존재할 가능성 ' 에 대한 성○○의 XRD 검사결과, 한국화학시험연구원의 검사결과 등을 종합하면, 황토팩에서 검출된 검은색 자성체가 황토팩 제조과정 중 쇠볼의 마모 등으로 인한 유입된 쇳가루라는 취지의 이 부분 보도는 중요한 부분이 객관적 사실과 합치되지 않는 허위라고 할 것이다 ( 다만 원심은 황토 원료인 자철석이 인체에 유해하지 않다는 부분은 사실에 부합한다는 취지로 판시하였으나, 기록에 의하면 이 사건 제1차 방송에서는 자철석이라는 내용은 전혀 언급되지 아니하였고 이 사건 제2차 방송 당시 황토의 성분에 관한 내용이 언급된 바 있으나 그 전체적인 보도 내용, 특히 위 방송 중 " 저희 쪽에서 나오는 그 산화철이 그게 쇳가루지 황토 안에 포함되어 있는 산화철인지 과학적으로 규명할 시간도 충분했을 거라고 생각합니다. ", " 황토 속에서 일반적으로 보이지 않던 자철석이 들어있는 것입니다. " 라는 등의 보도 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 제1, 2차 방송의 전체적인 취지는 황토 원료로서의 자철석의 유해성에 관한 것이 아니라 쇠볼 마모로 인한 쇳가루의 유해성에 관한 것으로 보이므로, 원심의 이 부분 판시는 그 보도 취지와 다르다 할 것이다 ) . ( 나 ) 다음으로 피고인들이 위 보도 내용을 사실로 믿은 데 상당한 이유가 있는지에 관하여 살피건대, 위 인정사실에서 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 피고인들이 ①이 사건 제1, 2차 보도에 이르기까지 수 개의 황토팩 제조회사, 쇠볼밀 분쇄업자, 쇠볼밀 분쇄기 제조업자, 황토전문연구가, 황토 원료 산지 등을 취재하고 관련 문헌 조사, 목측 검사 및 정밀 검사 등을 실시하였는바, 위와 같은 취재 대상 선정, 취재 방법이 크게 부당하다거나 소홀해 보이지 아니하는 점, ②피해자 회사를 상대로 현장취재, 인터뷰 요청, 자료 요청 등을 한 점, ③이 사건 제1, 2차 방송 내용은 모두 국민의 신체와 건강에 직접적인 영향을 줄 수 있는 내용으로서 긴급하게 보도할 필요성이 있다고 보이는 점 ( 나아가 이 사건 제1, 2차 방송은 모두 중금속 함유 부분에 더 중점을 두거나 상당한 시간을 할애하고 있고, 위 중금속 함유 부분은 관련 정정 및 반론보도청구 사건에서 모두 사실에 부합한다는 취지의 판결이 선고되었으며, 이 부분 역시 국민의 신체, 건강에 직접적인 영향을 줄 수 있는 내용이다 ), ④피해자 회사는 피고인들에게 황토 원료의 성분에 대하여 설명하였다고 주장하나, 이러한 주장은 박○○의 원심 법정에서의 진술, 관련 방송금지가처분 결정내용, 언론중재위원회의 결정 등에 비추어 믿기 어렵고, 오히려 피해자 회사 작성의 고소장 기재에 의하면 피해자 회사 역시 자성을 띄는 황토의 성분으로 적철석이 아니라 자철석을 기재하고 있으므로 피해자 회사가 충분한 설명을 하지 못하였다고 보이는 점, ⑤관련 국내 문헌, 산화철의 성분 분석 방법, 식품의약품안전청의 검사 결과 등에 비추어 보면, 황토 및 화학 전문가가 아닌 피고인들로서는 황토 원료 내 자철석의 존재, 성질 및 그 함량에 대한 세밀한 정보를 얻기 어려웠다고 보이는 점, ⑥피해자 회사가 원심의 요청에도 불구하고 쇠볼 샘플을 제출하지 않고 있는바, 이에 비추어 보면 피고인들이 황토팩에서 검출된 자성체와 피해자 회사의 쇠볼의 성분이 일치하는지 검사하는 것 역시 사실상 불가능하였으리라 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인들이 황토팩에서 검출된 검은색 자성체가 황토팩 제조과정 중 심볼의 마모 등에 의해 유입된 쇳가루라고 믿은 데 상당한 이유가 있었다 . 할 것이다 .

(2) In light of the fact that the part related to overseas exports (A) above was recognized, in particular, the victim company exported to Japan from around 2002 through the overseas transfer set, and the victim company sold the products of the victim company by entering into the home shopping transaction contract with the home shopping transaction contract, etc., it is reasonable to view this part of the report to the effect that the victim company does not export the yellow factoring products to foreign countries as false because the important part of the report does not coincide with objective facts.

(B) Next, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants were aware of whether there is a reasonable reason to believe that the above report was made by the Defendants; (b) the victim company stated the off-line company on its website and the second broadcast website before the second broadcast of this case; (c) the Defendants posted only the home shopping company with Japan covered by the Defendants on the overseas sales channels; and (d) the Defendants cannot be confirmed through the Korea Customs Service as they relate to the secrets of private companies; and (e) in light of the above facts, the Defendants did not appear to have made an investigation only on the above home shopping company; (b) the relationship between the Defendants and the victim company and the victim company, and the progress of this case until the time, it would be difficult for the Defendants to confirm it with the victim company; and (c) the victim company's export promotion details were made to promote the safety of yellow soil; and (c) the Defendants were not required to determine whether the exported product was exported abroad, and there were considerable reasons to believe that there were more urgent factors to export the product in Japan.

B) In the instant case, defamation expressions in question as to whether it is for the public interest or not include metal scrap, which is closely related to the body and health of the people, since the victim company's market share in the victim company accounts for a majority, it was more likely for the people's body and health, and other press media also reported these contents, and the Korea Food and Drug Administration's recommendations for yellow factoring products are prepared after the first and second broadcasts of this case. In full view of the following, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants reported each of the instant broadcasts of this case to the effect that the Defendants notified the risks of yellow factoring products and urged appropriate regulations.

C) Sub-decisions

Thus, the contents of the broadcast Nos. 1 and 2 of this case are believed to be true by the actor.

As a fact with considerable reasons, the purpose of this part of the facts charged is for the public interest. Accordingly, in light of the above legal principles, the defendants' act in this part of the facts charged is dismissed from illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is justified in its conclusion.

B. In the crime of interference with business, which is established by spreading false facts, the crime of interference with business, which is established by interfering with another person’s business by spreading false facts, means spreading facts with different contents from actual objective facts to many and unspecified persons. In particular, in such a case, it is required to actively recognize that the act was false at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278, Jan. 28, 1994). 2) As seen earlier, as seen earlier, there is considerable reason to believe the contents of the report as fact at the time of each of the instant broadcasts made by the Defendants, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants had intention to interfere with business.

3) Therefore, since the obstruction of business among the facts charged in this case against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is just in its conclusion.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall hear the judge's seat

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kang Jin-hee