[2] The meaning and the method of proving the "suspect" as a subjective element for the crime of occupational breach of trust

[3] In a case where the Defendant was indicted for committing occupational breach of trust on the ground that he released files constituting the trade secrets of Company A, which he had been employed in Gap corporation, to Eul corporation as a competitor corporation, the case affirming the judgment below which held that the Defendant had an intention to commit occupational breach of trust at least at the time when the files were released out of Gap corporation, in full view of all the circumstances

1. As to trade secrets

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, files listed in the [crime List] of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the files of this case”) are included in mid- and long-term strategic reports on the victim EL branch chemical (hereinafter “EL branch chemical”) in the medium and long-term strategic reports, the implementation plan, the implementation plan of new business, the development plan of new products, strategies for entry into overseas business, expenses, operating profits, etc., and they cannot be ordinarily obtained without going through the holder, such as the person in charge of business. EL branch chemical prepared a detailed implementation plan for investment plan and investment plan of the corresponding year, new business expansion, overseas technical cooperation, development of new products, investment of new products, and the criteria for the agency sales activation, or made efforts and expenses to obtain competitive benefits from the competitor company, or made use thereof. Furthermore, EL branch chemical prepared a confidential document No. 1 and No. 2 among the files of this case, and prepared an objective guidelines for information protection and management of confidential information, including information protection guidelines, and imposed it on its employees and employees.

Therefore, the file of this case constitutes trade secret of ELV, and the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to trade secret as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the acquisition of property profits and the occurrence of loss

In the crime of occupational breach of trust, the term “when a person inflicts property damage” includes not only a case where a real damage is inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been caused (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4382, Oct. 30, 2003, etc.). The Defendant released the instant files constituting trade secrets of ELchemicals without permission, and even if the Defendant’s act does not actually inflict property damage, it constitutes a case where a risk of property damage has been caused, and thus, constitutes “when a property damage has been inflicted.” In addition, the Defendant acquired property profit by transmitting and storing the instant files constituting trade secrets in his/her personal e-mail.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquisition of property benefits and

3. As to the intention of breach of trust

In order to establish the crime of occupational breach of trust, the perception of occupational breach of trust as a subjective requirement and its consequence that the person himself/herself or a third party acquires the benefit and causes damage to the person himself/herself, i.e., the intention of breach of trust. Such perception is sufficient with dolusent perception. In cases where the defendant denies the criminal intent of breach of trust, the facts constituting the subjective element of the crime of breach of trust in light of the nature of the object have to be proved by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be reasonably determined based on the normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7878, Mar. 26, 2004; 2008Do9066, Jul. 15, 2010).

위 법리와 기록에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인은 엘지화학 재직 중에 ‘직원으로서 재직 중 취득하거나 알게 된 회사의 경영정보, 업무상 비밀 등을 회사의 사전 서면 승낙 없이 업무 이외의 목적이나 부정한 목적으로 근무지 외로 반출하거나 사용하지 않을 것’ 등을 내용으로 하는 정보보호동의서를 작성하였고, 엘지화학은 회사의 경영정보 등 영업비밀을 메신저 등을 통하여 외부로 유출하는 일체의 행위를 하여서는 아니된다는 내용의 정보보호규정과 외부발송메일관리요령에 관한 규정을 두고 있었으며, 피고인도 위와 같은 규정을 알고 있었던 점, 피고인이 이메일로 전송한 이 사건 파일들 중 제1, 2번 파일에는 비밀문서 표시가 기재되어 있어 이를 무단으로 반출하면 안 되는 파일임을 쉽게 알 수 있었던 점, 피고인은 이 사건 파일들을 개인 이메일로 전송한 이후에 자신의 집에 있는 외장하드디스크에 보관하고 있다가 엘지화학의 보안담당자로부터 보안체크 확인서의 제출을 요구받고 나서야 이 사건 파일들을 삭제한 점, 피고인이 이 사건 파일들을 개인 이메일로 전송한 바로 당일 저녁에 엘지화학과 경쟁업체인 금호석유화학 주식회사(이하 ‘금호석유화학’이라고 한다)에 인터넷으로 입사를 신청하였고, 그 후 금호석유화학에 입사하여 상품기획팀에서 엘지화학에서의 업무와 유사한 업무를 담당하였는데, 이 사건 파일들에 있는 문서들은 금호석유화학에도 경제적 유용성이 있는 정보였던 점, 피고인은 ‘2009년도 타웍스 사업계획서’를 작성하기 위해서 이 사건 파일들을 전송하였다고 주장하지만, 피고인이 위 사업계획서를 작성하지 않은 것으로 보아 업무상 필요에 의하여 이 사건 파일들을 반출한 것으로 보이지 않는 점 등을 종합할 때, 피고인은 이 사건 파일들을 엘지화학의 외부로 반출할 당시 적어도 미필적으로나마 배임의 고의가 있었다고 보아야 할 것이다.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intentional breach of trust.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)