특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
, however, from the date when this judgment has become final.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) - Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “victim company”) due to erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
(2) In the event of an international patent application under the name of Defendant B, the right to the invention, which forms the content thereof, is against Defendant B, and the victim company was in fact closed down its business, and thus, the said international patent application did not inflict damage on the victim company due to the act of changing the name of the said international patent application from the victim company to Defendant B, etc. The Defendants changed the said applicant’s name to prevent the crime of fraud by soliciting investors through the patent application in a foreign country. As such, the Defendants did not have the intent to commit a crime of breach of trust. (2) In the event of an unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in October
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges, although it could be found that the victimized company’s damage caused by the Defendants’ criminal act reaches 7.5 billion won, is unlawful. 2) The lower court’s decision that acquitted the Defendants of unjust sentencing is unlawful.
2. Determination
A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for amendments to an amendment to an indictment with the content that the amount of property damage among the facts charged in the instant case was changed from “7.5 billion won” to “12.9 billion won,” and this court permitted this. As such, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained due to changes in the subject of the judgment
However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles are still subject to the judgment of this court.
B. The judgment of the court below on the assertion that the Defendants did not cause property damage to the victim company as to the erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.