[1] The meaning of "where property damage is inflicted on property" in the crime of occupational breach of trust

[2] The requirements for recognizing beneficiaries who gain profits from the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust and third parties closely related thereto as co-principals with the criminal committing the crime of occupational breach of trust

[3] The case holding that a company employee's act of removing trade secrets without permission for the purpose of divulging them to the competitor has reached the crime of occupational breach of trust

[1] The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business in violation of one's duty obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain such benefit and thereby causes loss to the principal. Here, "where property loss is inflicted on the principal" includes not only a case where a loss is actually done but also a case where a risk of actual loss of property has been caused.

[2] In order to recognize a beneficiary who benefits from the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust or a third party closely related thereto as a co-principal with an executor of the crime of occupational breach of trust, it is not sufficient to acquire profits by taking advantage of the act of breach of trust passively even though the act of the executor is aware that it constitutes an act of breach of trust against the victim himself/herself, and it is necessary to actively participate in the act of breach of trust by inducing the executor of the act of breach of trust or participating in the whole process of the act of breach

[3] The case holding that where a company employee disclosed a trade secret to a competitor or ships it out without permission for the purpose of using it for his own interest, the company's employee cannot be a joint principal offender of the crime of occupational breach of trust

[1] Article 356 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 30 and 356 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 30 and 356 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do4923 decided Mar. 14, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 101) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679 decided Feb. 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 851) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do1911 decided Jul. 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1832)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 2 and Prosecutor

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yu Chang-soo et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 2003No163 delivered on July 3, 2003

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The Prosecutor’s appeals against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 are all dismissed.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision is just in finding the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 not guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and there is no evidence supporting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes"), and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. The court below's decision is justified in finding the defendants 1 and 2 not guilty of the violation of the rules of evidence.

B. As to Defendant 1’s occupational breach of trust

The Prosecutor appealed against Defendant 1’s occupational breach of trust, which the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty, but did not state the grounds of appeal as to this part in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

C. As to Defendant 3

According to the records, Defendant 3 denied the crime of this case, in collusion with Defendant 1 and Belgium’s director non-indicted 1, etc., which destroyed evidence of another person’s criminal case by removing material about the trade secret of Samsung Electronic, which was kept and managed in the server computer of Belgiumweb, and thus, Defendant 3 asked the prosecutor to the effect that “the above non-indicted 1 conspired with Defendant 3 to commit the crime of this case,” and it can be seen that “the above non-indicted 1 conspired with Defendant 3 to commit the crime of this case, but if Non-indicted 1 made the statement, I agree.” However, this statement alone cannot be deemed as a confession of the crime of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 3 conspired to commit the crime of this case with the above non-indicted 1, etc.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion that acquitted Defendant 3 is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined.

A. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 2’s act of supplying the above 0th anniversary of the 1st 20th 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 1st 2006th 2nd 2nd 1st 3th 2nd 1st 2006nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2006nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 2nd 2006nd 1st 2nd 3th 2006nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 206nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 206nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3.

B. The judgment of this Court

However, such fact-finding and judgment of the court below are hard to accept.

The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person in charge of another's business obtains economic benefits or has a third party obtain such benefits from an act in violation of one's duty and thereby causes loss to the principal. The term "when the person causes property loss" includes not only real loss but also the risk of actual property loss (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679 delivered on February 11, 2003). The beneficiary who gains economic benefits from the crime of occupational breach of trust or a third party closely related thereto is recognized as a joint principal offender with the awareness that the act of the person in charge of occupational breach of trust constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust with the awareness that the act of the person in charge of occupational breach of trust constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust with the awareness that the act of the person in charge of the breach of trust constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust with the awareness that it constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust against the victim. It is not sufficient to actively participate in the act of the person in charge of the breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do19111 delivered on July 23, 1999).

However, among the evidence cited by the judgment below, there is only a protocol of examination of the defendant 1 prepared by the prosecutor as evidence as to the process and method of releasing the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic and the degree of involvement of the defendant 2. Although the statement is not consistent, Defendant 1, upon retirement around April 200, was employed in a venture business with respect to the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic, stored the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic on the lower half of the same month in cro-ROMs and diskettes and brought them out of the company and brought them out of the company at around May of the same year, and then, around June of the same year, the above cro-ROMs were stored in the above 300,000,000 won and 37,000,0000,000 won and 37,000,000 won and 1,000,000 won and 37,000,000 won and 37,000,000 won and 1,000.

Thus, Defendant 1, from the beginning, contained the trade secrets in Samsung Electronic Trade Secrets and a CD for the purpose of discharging them to another venture business or using them for his own interest. Thus, Defendant 1, when he removed and took them out from Samsung Electronic and brought them into the house on May 2000, he already expressed the crime of occupational breach of trust of Defendant 1 on the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic and brought them out of Samsung Electronic and brought them into the house and brought them out of the house, and the risk of the damage to the property of Samsung Electronic and became effective in the crime of occupational breach of trust. Defendant 2 contacted Defendant 1 and attempted to acquire the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic, which are contained in the above CDR, after that contact with Defendant 1, and therefore, Defendant 2 cannot be a joint principal offender of the crime of occupational breach of trust of Defendant 1 on the trade secrets contained in the above CDR.

On the other hand, the above diskettes is also up to the beginning point of the crime of occupational breach of trust in relation to the trade secrets contained therein when the defendant 1 takes them out from Samsung Electronic. After the defendant 1 made an agreement with the defendant 2 to find a job in Belgium, the diskettes took them out to Defendant 1's house, but up to that time, the defendant 1 stated that the defendant 2 was merely aware of the data on the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic, and that it was merely a mere fact that the defendant 2 did not demand the defendant 1 to additionally hold the data on the trade secrets of Samsung Electronic, and did not follow the method or means of additional release of the data. Thus, the defendant 2's act did not intend to acquire profits by taking advantage of the trade secrets contained in the above diskettes as a passive act of occupational breach of trust of the defendant 1, and it cannot be said that the defendant 1 actively participated in the crime of occupational breach of trust or the act of occupational breach of trust of the defendant 2, apart from the fact that the defendant 1 did not participate in the crime of occupational breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below, which held Defendant 2 as joint principal offender of the crime of occupational breach of trust by Defendant 1, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of occupational breach of trust and the joint principal offender thereof, or by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 shall be reversed. Since this part is related to the part of the judgment of the court below against the same defendant and the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2, the whole judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 and 3 shall be dismissed in all as it is without merit, and

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)