beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the charge of occupational breach of trust (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) due to the acquisition of trade secrets (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), and the violation of the Copyright Act.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who administers another’s business” in breach of occupational breach of trust, “a person who administers another’s business,” “major asset for business use,” “trade secret” in violation of Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act due to the acquisition of trade secret, and “actual similarity” in the crime of violation of Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright
In light of the records, the court below cannot be deemed to have affected the judgment in violation of the provisions of the Act on the Procedure for Professional Examiners' Participation.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the charge of occupational breach of trust (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), and the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) due to the divulgence of trade secrets (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), on April 3, 2012 and September 6, 2012 (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal)
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and limits the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.