beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.04 2017노5238

업무상배임등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while retired from office in the victimized company, only kept some of the data on the same content as the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant business data”) for the remaining handling of business affairs and the transfer and takeover thereof, and the Defendant’s act did not cause damage, such as decline in sales, to the victimized company. Therefore, the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established.

On the contrary, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. In full view of the purport of the amended Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), efforts to maintain the trade secrets of the victimized company, etc., the instant business data can be deemed business secrets. Thus, the Defendant leaked business secrets.

Although the judgment of the court below is judged differently, there is an error of mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant was based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant, from the police and the prosecutor’s office to the court of the lower court, carried the instant business data to take over the transferee and the victimized company’s remaining business.

There is no statement, and rather, the statement was inconsistent with the facts charged, such as statement to the effect that it corresponds to the purport that it is stated or statement to the effect that it is "I would know well," and evidence that conforms to the purpose of the leakage of materials alleged in the trial by the defendant is only a witness G's statement in the court of original instance. The above statement is not consistent with the defendant's statement in the investigative agency and the court of original instance, or the F's statement that is the representative director of the victimized company, and it is difficult to believe that there is no other evidence to support it, as argued in the court of first instance.