부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반(영업비밀누설등)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant D is reversed.
Defendant
A corporation shall be punished by a fine of 20,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (as to the part of the prosecutor and not guilty), the decision of the court below that acquitted Defendant A, B, and C of this part of the facts charged, even though the acquisition and use of the license of the “P” program, etc., and the fact of infringement of the victim’s property right is sufficiently recognized, in light of each program’s copyright registration and its content, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment that the court below sentenced (defendant A and B) is too unreasonable (the community service order of one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of imprisonment, Defendant C: one year of suspended execution, two years of community service order of 120 hours of imprisonment, Defendant D: fine of 20 million won of fine).
(c)
The sentence sentenced by the court below against Defendant A, B, and C is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine
A. The lower court’s determination is not consistent with the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence as indicated in its holding as to this part of the facts charged, i.e., whether the Defendants led to the instant P, and whether they developed the instant P.
In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s assertion that the P had developed the P in 2 months00, that the Defendant’s assertion does not necessarily mean, ② there is no fact that the victimized company’s employees, includingO, and investigative agencies confirm the original program director stored in the Defendant’s database that can identify whether the P was reproduced, ③ there is no objective data to recognize that the P was taken out of the victimized company. In full view of the fact that there is no objective data to recognize that the Defendants were taken out of the victimized company, the Defendants acquired and used the lawsuit of the instant P program, etc. at the same time by means of reproduction, use, etc