업무상배임등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the facts acknowledged by the lower court and the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Defendant leaked industrial technology of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) with an unlawful purpose.
In addition, it is recognized that the Defendant committed a fiduciary relationship with the victimized company by divulging technical data recorded in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “technical data of this case”) as an executive officer of the victimized company in violation of the letter of intent.
However, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology among the facts charged in the instant case, and of occupational breach of trust due to the divulgence of trade secret data. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion
A) The Defendant, with a plan to resign from employment in the victimized company, contacted with the Hague Hunter.
On March 2016, the Defendant contacted with EEC, AH, the H, etc., the GJ, and in particular, the EEC considered the severance from office to related companies, including foreign companies.
There is also a statement that the head of the Si/Gun/Gu will keep the Hague Constitutional base and make the curriculum vitae even in the domains prepared by the defendant at the time.
Although the defendant promoted to the former, the defendant was moving to the E business division, which is a non-human body, and it seems that the future plans to resign actively.
B) Although there is no particular health problem, the Defendant planned that there was false illness.
On May 2016, the Defendant was unable to attend the Council of Self-Governing Management, and the victimized company was unable to work normally due to the lack of body in the injured company while the reason was identified, and the Defendant submitted a certificate of diagnosis, claiming that the vehicle is not on the roadway.