업무상배임등
All appeals are dismissed.
Each "E" among the orders and reasons of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to "G".
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant A, E, F, J, K, B, L, G, D, and M
A. As to the grounds of appeal relating to Defendant A and G Y 1028 pdf file, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) relating to the df file related to Defendant A’s violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), and acquitted Defendant G on the ground that the changed facts charged against Defendant A were not
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on trade secrets and principal business assets in the crime of occupational breach of trust under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
B. As to the grounds of appeal related to Defendant A, E, and F files, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the facts charged against Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition (i.e., divulgence of business secrets) and the facts charged against Defendant E, and F, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on trade secrets in the crime of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
C. Trade secrets against Defendant A.