beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.11.09 2017노5752

업무상배임

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendants registered the instant patent in Defendant B’s name in order to prevent damages that may arise to the company and Defendants due to the management dispute between the damaged companies caused by the following shareholders, including H, and thus, the Defendants did not have the intent of unlawful acquisition.

B) Since the victimized company is substantially Defendant A’s one company, the circumstance that the change of the patent name of this case did not undergo a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders does not constitute a violation of procedure.

Therefore, there is no breach of trust against the Defendants.

C) The victimized Company is substantially Defendant A-1, and the lower court held 51% of the shares of the victimized Company.

Recognizing the facts of corporate governance structure, this study cited the facts.

D) Since Defendant A paid KRW 20 million to N, Defendant B succeeded to the status of the inventor, the actual owner of the instant patent right is Defendant B.

E) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (for each of four months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment, which the court below decided against the Defendants, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, following the summary of the evidence, “the judgment on the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

In addition to the following circumstances, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable in light of the following circumstances.

Contrary to the allegations by the Defendants, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.