logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.27 2016고단2332
업무상배임등
Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months;

2. Defendant B

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

(b).

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A shall be appointed as a researcher at the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on May 6, 2003, and from around 2008, a research team leader shall be engaged in the business of developing Daejeon-prevention Co., Ltd. as the head of the research team. On June 17, 201, he/she shall leave the company to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and shall be appointed as the head of the chemical business division team. On November 20, 2006, Defendant B shall be appointed as the researcher at the victim company from around November 20, 201 and shall be appointed as the researcher at the victim company from around 2010 and shall be appointed as the director in charge of research and development and production management by leaving the company to the Dispute Resolution on September 19, 2012.

No one shall acquire or use trade secrets or divulge them to a third party for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or inflicting damage on a person holding trade secrets, and the Defendants have duties not to disclose or divulge major business assets, such as trade secrets of the victim company acquired on duty, if they leave the victim company in accordance with the "a confidentiality pledge", etc. prepared at the time of retirement of the victim company.

Nevertheless, around June 17, 2011, Defendant A retired from the Victim Company, and leaked the basic lebs (e.g., the percentage of input materials, the combination of solvents, and the order of manufacturing) of the “E” and the “F” that were developed from 2002 at the time of the establishment of the Victim Company, which were managed as confidential, by openly known about the Daejeon Preventive co-rating amount and the lebsing amount.

Accordingly, Defendant A, using the aforementioned leaked data, produced “G”, which is substantially the same product as “E” of the victim company’s product, and “I” as “H”, respectively, and traded in the victim company, Defendant A entered into a supply contract with the China J in which the victim company was located on April 4, 2014, and entered into a light supply contract on April 29, 2014.

arrow