The Defendants knew that the patent applicant was the victim and Nonindicted 3, while requesting the patent application for the 3D multi-level game control tower which the victim Nonindicted Co. 1 Company made to the multiple patent firms of this case, they did not cause property damage to the victim by changing the patent applicant’s name in violation of the business as in the facts charged in this case. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① established the victim company in the name of 3D game, around June 207, and proposed that the defendant will take over the victim company while developing the victim's 3D game so that the defendant company would have been using the victim's exclusive use of the 3D game in the name of 3D game, ② The defendant company's patent application was made under the victim's name; ② the defendant company's patent application was made under the victim's 3D game's exclusive use of the 3D game; ② the defendant company's patent application was made under the victim's 3D game's exclusive use of the 3D game's exclusive use of the 3D game; ② the defendant company's patent application was made under the victim's 3D's exclusive use of the 3D game's exclusive use of the 3D game's patent application, and the defendant 2 was made with the defendant's 3D exclusive use of the 3D game's exclusive use of the 3D game's patent application.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) Daj-dong Jin-jin