부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반(영업비밀누설등)등
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the theft charges against Defendant A and Defendant B.
Defendant A (Defendant A) is a person who works for the head of the office at the victim FF corporation that plans performances, etc. from around 2008 to October 2013, produces and distributes performances, and takes overall charge of duties.
On November 14, 2013, around 01:17, the Defendant: (a) opened and intruded a corrected entrance using the entrance password known in advance by all employees in the damaged office located in the Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu Office; (b) and (c) invaded the damaged office over seven occasions on November 22, 2013, around 02:25, around November 28, 2013, around 04:18, around December 28, 2013, around 02:2:2:28, around 28, 2013, around 03:23:03:23, around December 23, 2013; and (d) around January 14, 2014; and (e) around 22:36, January 15, 2014.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of each part of the defendant (including the part concerning the statement of H);
1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect B;
1. Each police statement made to H and I;
1. Recording (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was an employee of the victimized company at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, he had the authority to enter the office. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant seems to have no intention to provide labor to the victimized company after the end of October 2013 and did not actually provide labor (the report of deprivation of qualification to the Health Insurance Corporation is merely the fact that the victimized company finally confirmed the termination of labor relations with the defendant and took follow-up administrative measures accordingly, and thus, it does not change the above merely because the date of report of deprivation of qualification to the defendant was February 5, 2014. Nevertheless, if the defendant repeatedly entered the office of the victimized company during late-time hours after the end of February 5, 2013, it goes against the intention of the victimized company and enters the dwelling contrary to the intention of the resident.