업무상배임등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to mistake of facts ① Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets, etc.), the complainant E (hereinafter “instant company”) shall be deemed to have maintained the instant J program as confidential by considerable effort. ② In relation to the fact of occupational breach of trust, the Defendant shall be deemed to have leaked the members of the J program to be employed by the FF company, thereby gaining pecuniary benefits, and suffered loss to the instant company.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.
According to Article 38 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a judgment shall be made by a written decision prepared by a judge. According to Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a written judgment shall be signed and sealed by a judge (paragraph (1)), and if the presiding judge is unable to affix his/her signature and seal, another judge shall write the reason therefor and affix his/her signature and seal thereto (paragraph (2)). Thus, a judgment based on a written decision without such judge’s signature and seal shall be reversed on the ground that the judgment falls under “when there
(See Supreme Court Decisions 63Do321 delivered on April 12, 1964, 2001Do5338 delivered on December 27, 2001, etc.). According to records, the court below sentenced the judgment of the court below based on the judgment of the court below on the nine-time public trial date, but omitted the seal of the judge in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is in violation of the law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
However, the judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio destruction, but the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined in below.
3. The judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake.