업무상배임
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. Pre-amended charges and judgment of the court below
A. Before the amendment, the Defendant was in office as a director in charge of technical management of the Victim C Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in the Gyeonggi-si Co., Ltd. from July 3, 2006 to March 20, 208, and was engaged in affairs related to the manufacture, production, etc. of D, E, etc., which is a “influencesive substance”. The Defendant had a duty to take the duty of prohibiting competitive business employed or not open to the same or competitive company using the composite ratio of Article 3 of the “influencesive substance” and the work process technology of the victimized company.
On January 208, 2008, the Defendant was determined to find employment as a technical adviser for the production and production of the FFI’s shot and shot and shot(shot and shot and shot(shot and shot and shot and shot and shot). On May 2008, the Defendant produced products such as G, H and I, which are similar to those of the damaged company’s “unshot and shot and shot(s)” by purchasing and using the FI’s shot and producing the shot and shot(s
As a result, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the market exchange price in the amount of the above trade secret, and suffered loss equivalent to the decrease in the amount of the damage company.
B. The lower court determined that “the facts charged of this case was employed by the Defendant at the F Corporation (hereinafter “F”) around May 2008, when he retired from the victimized company, and F had F prepare and produce technology, equipment, etc. necessary for the purchase and production of “influence alcohol” as a trade secret.
However, on March 20, 2008, the Defendant had already retired from the victimized company, and there was no circumstance to prove that there was a fiduciary relationship to handle the business between the Defendant and the victimized company after retirement.
Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to be in the position of a person dealing with the affairs of the victimized company around May 2008, and evidence to recognize it otherwise.