Defendant 1 and six others

Gambling Crime

Law Firm Han-hun, Attorneys Jeon Jong-hun et al.

1. Defendant 3 (Defendant 1 of the Supreme Court’s judgment) and Defendant 4 (Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court’s judgment) are punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each year.

2. One day under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against the defendant 3 and 4; and

3. Provided, That with respect to defendants 3 and 4, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

4. Of the facts charged against Defendant 3 and 4, each of the charges against the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act shall be acquitted.

5. Defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 shall be acquitted respectively.

From August 1997 to November 30, 202, Defendant 3 was working for the victim non-indicted 1 corporation, while working for the victim non-indicted 1 corporation, and had been working as the ubiquitous research institute in charge of the development of the technology of the product of an artificial device and the preparation of circuits, and Defendant 4 had been working for the non-indicted 16 corporation as the head of the vehicle quota research institute from August 1997 to October 30, 2002, with various projects such as radio communication technology to exchange information, radio communication technology to exchange information, geographic information system (GIS), server painting technology connected with the Internet, etc., and notify the owner and information users of the vehicle information about the condition of the vehicle through mobile phones and PDA, etc., and the head of the vehicle team in charge of the technology development of the mobile device and the mobile device at present from August 1, 1997 to January 30, 2002, while working for the non-indicted 16 corporation et al.

Defendant 3 and 4 carried out CDs and computers, which are mainly business assets of Nonindicted Co. 1, in accordance with the service regulations or the good faith principle, with the aim of using them for their own interest in violation of their duties, even though there was a occupational duty that should prevent any business secrets or major business assets related to teletypes technology from being leaked out of the outside, Defendant 3 and 4 carried out CDs and computers, which are mainly business assets of Nonindicted Co. 1, which are, around November 30, 2002, in the research institute located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (number omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 1, a company located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the aim of using them for their own interest. At the same time, at the same time, Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired the amount equivalent to the exchange price of the circuits, etc. developed with considerable expenses, and at the same time suffered property damage from Nonindicted Co. 1, 2002.

1. Entry of Defendants 3 and 4 in each part of the second trial records;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 21 in the third protocol of trial among the witness Nonindicted 22, 2, 18, and 5, Nonindicted 20 in the fourth protocol of trial, Nonindicted 19, 4, and 17 in the fifth protocol of trial, and Nonindicted 21 in the sixth protocol of trial

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

1. Each police interrogation protocol on Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

1. Venture business confirmation, written approval of a company-affiliated research institute, a stock investment contract, a business partnership contract for a domestic large enterprise, a business recreation, a contract for main text and main text, text and LEL, service regulations, and the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (examination of trade secrets related to trade secrets);

1. Investigation report (integrated circuits of the I-MOBS devices, etc. prepared by the suspects in Nonindicted Co. 1), investigation report (data sent by the suspects to Nonindicted Co. 6 in order to mass up the BT10Js from Nonindicted Co. 3)

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Taking into account the circumstances, etc. in which the defendant retired from Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant 3 and 4 merely used the data of Nonindicted Co. 3 after withdrawal from Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 1, and thus, the said Defendants did not have the position to manage another’s business in relation to Nonindicted Co. 1.

B. The above Defendants possessed CDs and computers from Nonindicted Co. 1 with the consent of Nonindicted Co. 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1, and therefore, did not commit any act in violation of their duties.

C. Since Nonindicted Co. 1 discontinued the production of a telephone terminal at the time of the above Defendants’ retirement, Nonindicted Co. 1 did not pose a risk of damage to Nonindicted Co. 1.

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine

The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains, or causes a third party obtain, pecuniary benefits by an act in violation of one's duty, thereby causing damage to the principal. Here, "act in violation of one's duty" refers to any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected or by performing an act that is expected not to perform as a matter of course under the provisions of law, terms of a contract, or the good faith principle, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business, or by performing an act that is naturally expected not to perform. "When an act in violation of one's duty" includes not only cases where a real loss is inflicted but also cases where a company's employee discharges trade secrets to a competitor or ships them out without permission for the purpose of using them for his own interest, the act in violation of occupational breach of trust constitutes an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal, and even where such materials are major assets produced by an employer using considerable time, effort, and expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do989).

B. As to the assertion that a person does not constitute a person dealing with another's business

If an employee of a company removes trade secrets or major business assets not disclosed to an unspecified number of unspecified persons for the purpose of his own interest without permission, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established as seen earlier. Even if it is thereafter used, it does not constitute occupational breach of trust only if it is an employee of the company concerned. Thus, this part of the argument cannot be accepted.

C. As to the assertion that the act does not violate the duty

(10) According to the aforementioned evidence, “Non-Indicted Party 1’s business regulations, which were in force from January 4, 201, entered into force on Non-Indicted Party 1’s 2, including Non-Indicted Party 1’s service regulations, stipulate that “it shall not leak, open, or use for any other purposes any secret that he/she developed or acquired while on duty.” Non-Indicted Party 1’s business research institute was installed separate doors from other departments of the company. Non-Indicted Party 1’s business research institute was used for research and development, and Non-Indicted Party 2’s business research and development of new-use data, including Non-Indicted Party 3’s business research and development of new-use devices.” Defendant 3 used Non-Indicted Party 1’s business data using the aforementioned new-use database for which Non-Indicted Party 4’s business research and development of new-use data were carried out by Non-Indicted Party 1’s company, and Defendant 1’s business management and development of new-use devices.”

In full view of the above facts, the CDs taken out by Defendant 3 and 4 and the data stored on the computer constitute at least a major asset of Nonindicted Company 1, and the above Defendants were deemed to have taken them out without permission.

D. As to the assertion that there was no risk of damage

According to the evidence mentioned above, the non-indicted 1 corporation was dispatched to the "non-indicted 11 corporation", which was a device researcher of the teletypes terminal around October 2002, but this was due to the delay in the commercial services of the "SaB", which was jointly developed by the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 23 corporation, which was the development manager of the non-indicted 23 corporation, had participated in the teletypes business by establishing a separate company with the permission of the non-indicted 23 corporation, and the non-indicted 1 corporation was participating in the teletypes business. The non-indicted 1 corporation did not have planned to suspend the production of the teletypes terminal of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and the non-indicted 1 corporation did not accept the fact that the risk of the "SaB" was generated through the non-indicted 6 corporation from March 203, 203.

1. The part in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the whole of the defendants);

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants conspired, (1) from November 24, 2002 to December 30 of the same month, the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2003, Defendant 3, and 4, at the office of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the main technology for the product of teletype terminal devices, carried out CDs and computers containing technical data, such as circuit drawings, parts list, Round manuals, test manuals, software, and specifications, which are trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1, to Nonindicted Co. 3 without permission, and thereafter, provided the above technical data to Nonindicted Co. 3, 200, and the Defendants, using them, divulged the aforementioned technical data to Nonindicted Co. 3, 200, “BT10J” and “AC200,” “AC200,” “AC200G 200,000,” and then, divulged the technical data to Nonindicted Co. 1, 2003, thereby divulging them to Nonindicted Co. 4, 2003.

(b) Amendments to Bill of Indictment;

Article 18 (2) 1 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004), and Article 18 (2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007) were charged against all the facts charged, and the prosecutor amended Article 18 (2) 1 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Nov. 30, 2002) with respect to the use of trade secret "the use of trade secret" of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Sep. 21, 2007) on the 10th trial date of the case.

C. Determination

(1) On November 30, 2002, the part concerning the divulgence of trade secrets

Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004) provides that a person who divulges a trade secret to a third party is subject to punishment for each person who divulges a trade secret useful to the company to a third party without justifiable grounds, depending on whether the person is an executive officer or employee of the company at the time of disclosure or loses his/her status as an executive officer or employee, and Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 204) provides that a person who divulges a trade secret useful to the company to a third party in violation of his/her duty to keep the trade secret secret secret under a contractual relationship, etc. with the intent to obtain unjust

Therefore, even if the data provided by Defendant 3 and 4 to Nonindicted Co. 3 constituted trade secret, there is no evidence to acknowledge the divulgence of the trade secret of Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 3, a third party at the time of the executive officer or employee of Nonindicted Co. 1. Rather, as seen earlier, Defendant 3 set back on November 30, 2002 and carried the CD and computer, and stored them in the house. On December 2002, 202, Defendant 3 copied the data related to “Ababababababa” stored on the hard disk computer used by Nonindicted Co. 3, a copy of the data stored in the CD on Nov. 30, 203, which was stored in the CD, and Defendant 4 kept the data on Nov. 30, 2002 to Defendant Co. 34 and the said data were stored in the computer. Thus, Defendant 4 had no evidence to be stored in the said computer.

Therefore, Defendant 3 and 4 divulged the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1 to a third party at the time of the officer or employee of Nonindicted Co. 1, and this part of the facts charged that the other Defendants conspired with the said Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

(2) The portion on the use of trade secrets around September 2004

This part of the facts charged provides that the aforementioned technical data was used by manufacturing "I-MTR" on or around September 2004 using teletype terminal technical data leaked on or around November 2002, and Paragraph 2 of the Addenda of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004) (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007) provides that prior to the enforcement of this Act, persons who violated the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 18 shall be subject to the previous provisions, and the previous provisions (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004) provide that there is no separate penal provision as to cases where trade secrets are leaked to third parties, as well as cases where trade secrets are used by themselves.

Therefore, if the technical data of a teleact device was already disclosed to a third party around November 2002 as stated in this part of the facts charged, such leakage itself cannot be punished against the Defendants by applying Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004) separate from whether it can be subject to punishment under Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004).

Even if not, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants had "the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing loss to the company" as prescribed by Article 18 (2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004). Rather, according to the records, the non-indicted 1 corporation did not produce the "HHSSSSSSSSSP" through the non-indicted 6 corporation, which is a clinical processing manufacturer, and then continued to employ employees by selling the "NewSSSSSSSSSSSP" business to the non-indicted 7 corporation on April 2003, 203, and the non-indicted 1 corporation aggravated its financial resources on December 21, 2007, and thus, the defendants could not be deemed to have used the "MMSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSMMMMMMMMMMM."

D. Conclusion

Therefore, since each of the facts charged is not a crime or there is no proof of a crime, it is not guilty in accordance with the former and latter parts of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Part on occupational breach of trust (Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6, 7).

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 in collusion with Defendant 3 and 4. Since the non-indicted 1 corporation established a separate business-affiliated research institute, separated, operated, and managed the technical data of teletype terminal devices as confidential through regular service regulations, it is well aware that all of the above data are treated as confidential in the course of business. Although there were occupational duties to prevent the above data from being leaked, it is in violation of its duties. From November 24, 2002 to the 30th of the same month, the non-indicted 1 corporation located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul from November 24, 2002, Defendant 3 and 4 provided the above non-indicted 1 corporation with the profits equivalent to the sum of the technical value of the computer used by the CD, which is an important technology of the teletype terminal device product, and provided them to the non-indicted 1 corporation at the same time by taking advantage of the technology development amount of the aforementioned 30 billion won.

B. Determination

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 the perpetrator of the crime of occupational breach of trust, it is insufficient to have acquired profits by passive acceptance of the act of breach of trust with the awareness that the act of the perpetrator constitutes the act of breach of trust against the victim himself/herself. It is necessary to actively participate in the act of breach of trust by inducing the perpetrator to commit the act of breach of trust or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4382, Oct. 30, 2003, etc.).

Therefore, according to the health records as to whether Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 engaged in the act of breach of trust against Defendant 3 and 4, who is an executor of the crime of occupational breach of trust, ① did not participate in the establishment of Nonindicted 3, and around January 2003, the establishment of Nonindicted 3, through Defendant 2 or Defendant 4, decided to import telephones devices developed by Nonindicted 3 into Japan, and Defendant 1 visited Nonindicted 6, around October 202 (see, e.g., Nonindicted 2) with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4’s instructions for the establishment of Nonindicted 1 corporation in collusion with Defendant 3 and 4, which were imported from Nonindicted 1 corporation at the time of the establishment of Nonindicted 2, 200, and Defendant 2 did not appear to have been engaged in the same business as “Defendant 3,” and Defendant 1 was also related to the production of her telephones, which were imported from Nonindicted 1 corporation.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)