The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On September 2016, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant told the mother to the effect that “D”, a vehicle fuel reduction machine sold by the victim C, is an object without a company, width, and fuel reduction effect is nonexistent,” in front of the Nam-gu Yan National University Park Jong-gu, Nam-gu, Namcheon-gu, Namcheon-gu, and that “In order to purchase the said object, the Defendant told the mother to the effect that “D”, a vehicle fuel reduction machine sold by the victim C, is an object without a company.”

However, in fact, the product manufactured in D, which reduces the fuel of the above vehicle, has a fuel reduction effect by obtaining a patent from the Korean Intellectual Property Office as a fuel reduction machine.

Accordingly, the defendant spreads false facts to interfere with the sale of goods by the victim.

2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion by the defense counsel did not contact with the Defendant Company E, a sales salesperson, and the Defendant’s statement that it was a product to be discarded by asking the inventor G via the victim, thereby constituting “a product without a company.”

"......." The price is low, and there is no effect of reducing fuel.

There is no fuel reduction effect.

“......”

Therefore, the defendant did not know that the facts he circulated are false, and the defendant did not actively recognize that the facts are false.

3. Determination

A. As to the crime of interference with the business of interfering with another person by spreading false facts in a way of spreading false facts in relation to the crime of interference with the business established by interfering with another person’s business, “the dissemination of false facts” refers to the dissemination of facts, which are different from the actual objective facts, to many and unspecified persons. In particular, in such a case, it is required that the act person actively perceived that the facts he distributed were false at the time of the act (Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278 delivered on January 28, 1994). (B) In this case, the content of the facts charged in this case is “D”, which is the reduction of vehicle fuel sold by the injured person.