Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From August 12, 2014, the Defendant, from around August 12, 2014, has been in the company director of the victim D Co., Ltd., which had been in the jurisdiction of the company in South-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Cro 101.

On January 10, 2013, the defendant, who is the actual operator of the company, had occupational duties to preserve and operate the patent right of "E" (patent number F) registered in the name of "D Co., Ltd." for the victim company.

Nevertheless, around June 11, 2015, the Defendant violated the above occupational duties and did not take any procedure, and registered the transfer of the above patent right to H to the company where the Defendant was a representative director, and the Defendant was a company with in-house director.

As a result, the Defendant acquired the amount of monetary benefits from the above patent right to H, thereby causing the loss equivalent to the amount equivalent to the above victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. Application of the Patent Registration Register, certified copy of the corporate registry (H)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel found guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order to the effect that since they had gone through lawful procedures in the process of transferring the patent right of this case and received KRW 200 million in return from H, a transferee company, H (hereinafter “acquisition company”), it did not violate the duty of the victim company.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant transferred the instant patent right to the victim by violating the duty as an operator of the company as stated in the facts charged.