(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.9.21.선고 2013노3165 판결

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant A shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. Defendant B and Defendant C shall be acquitted, respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Use of trade secrets

The defendant uses 20 files among the files listed in the attached list of crimes (hereinafter referred to as "technology files of this case", and only the sequences in the case of referring to a specific file). However, the remaining files are not available for the defendant's perusal or correction, and it cannot be deemed that they were used because they cannot be used for the equipment of the defendant C (hereinafter referred to as "defendant C") or they cannot be carried out because they cannot be used for the equipment of the defendant C (hereinafter referred to as "defendant C"). Nevertheless, the court below recognized the use of 73 files, which are files, beyond 20 files recognized that the defendant had used.

B) Part on occupational breach of trust

Among the instant technical files, AL (PP No. 72), AM (PP No. 73), and NN (PP No. 74) files do not possess a source file and do not have a source file but have the same environment as that of a mechanical system, or are unable to do so. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain useful information through the said source file. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act related to the said source files constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust, although it does not constitute a major business asset.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) As to Defendant A

A) misunderstanding of facts

(1) U files (No. 84) partial U files constitute trade secrets of the victimized company.

(2) Design drawings and document files (No. 62 to 66, 70, 71) parts

According to the seized computer evidence analysis data, it is recognized that the defendant had perused and stored the above files from June 2009 to March 2010. The defendant used the above files by inspecting them.

(3) In the process of repairing semiconductor equipment supplied by Defendant C to TG Energy, the fact that the above files were used. The Defendant used each of the above files in the process of manufacturing semiconductor equipment. The Defendant used the above files in the process of manufacturing semiconductor equipment.

B) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2) The X bar code reproduced by the Defendant against Defendant B is a file in which the boxes commonly used in the MMI program used in the manufacture of TMV equipment are collected, and in which there are many pages used by the long-term damaged company, and the damaged company has been specially managed, such as setting up a password. Accordingly, it constitutes trade secrets of the victimized company.

3) As to Defendant C (the mistake of fact or misapprehension of legal principle)

In light of the fact that the appraised value of the TMFV equipment of the victimized company is confirmed as KRW 24.26 billion, the amount of profit in the property of the Defendant C is confirmed. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant C of the amount of profit in the property without any judgment or additional examination. The lower court found the Defendant C not guilty of the amount of profit in the property without any judgment or additional examination. The lower court erred in

2. Ex officio determination

The prosecutor changed the facts charged of this case against the defendants, including the defendants C, to "the defendant and the stock company, obtained the amount of non-property benefits and caused property damage equivalent to the same amount to H, the damaged company," and changed to "the defendant and the stock company, obtained property benefits equivalent to the equivalent amount of 4,118,841,283 won, and suffered loss equivalent to the equivalent amount of 4,18,841,283 won," among the facts charged of this case, to "the defendant and the stock company, suffered loss equivalent to the equivalent amount of 3,00 won." The court below's decision was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant A and the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will review below.

3. Judgment on the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A and the prosecutor

A. Summary of the facts charged against Defendant A

1) The Defendant acquired 85 instant technology files, a trade secret, by copying, and storing 401 files owned by the victimized company without permission.

2) After the Defendant retired from employment to Defendant C, the Defendant copied and divulged the instant technology file to Defendant C’s computers and L’s computers jointly used for the Defendant’s use.

3) The Defendant used the instant technology file by using the rashing equipment, etc. producing the instant technology file to Defendant C.

4) The Defendant, in violation of his duties, leaked the instant technical files, which are major business assets of the victimized company, including trade secrets, thereby having the Defendant and the Defendant C obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 4,118,841,283, and suffered pecuniary damages equivalent to the same amount from the victimized company.

B. The judgment of the court below

1) The part on acquisition and leakage of trade secrets

The court below held that the defendant acquired and divulged the technical file of this case (excluding U.S. No. 84) which is a trade secret of the victimized company, in light of the following: (a) although it is recognized that the defendant acquired and divulged the technical file of this case (excluding U.S. file) which is a trade secret of the victimized company, the U.S. file of this case is prepared by W in his own technology; (b) the victimized company was allowed to receive and use the above file under the condition of investing in W; and (c) the victimized company was not transferred by W in its source code; and (d) the victimized company was not transferred by W in itself, but only granted the exclusive right to use the above file; and therefore, U.S. file of this case constitutes a trade secret

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on the acquisition or disclosure of trade secrets against the above file on the ground that it is not possible to do so.

2) Part on the use of trade secrets

The lower court found the Defendant guilty as to the unlawful use of the instant technical file (except Nos. 62 through 66, 70 through 75, 84) which is trade secrets of the victimized Company, and acquitted the following files as follows.

A) Action files and creation files (No. 72 to 75)

① In the instant case where it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant file was used for another purpose by correcting or referring to the fact that the instant file was already used as a compliance file, and that it is not possible to use the said file for another purpose, ② the structure of Defendant C’s system does not reveal that the said file was used by simply exceeding the reproduction level; ③ the fact that the creation file No. 75 was copied into North Korea of 0, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant used or used the said file while manufacturing Defendant C’s control program; and otherwise, it is difficult to find that the Defendant used the said file and the creation file, in light of the fact that there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge that the said file was actually used or used beyond the reproduction level.

B) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s design drawings and document files (No. 62 through 66, 70, 71) copied the above files on Defendant Company’s computer and executed them under the intent to utilize them for the production of the program. The use of them as educational materials does not constitute the use of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) because they do not fall under the original purpose of use of trade secrets.

3) Part on occupational breach of trust

The entire technology file of this case constitutes a major asset for the business use of the victimized Company, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes occupational breach of trust. The judgment of the court on the acquisition and leakage of trade secrets (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84, Apr. 1, 200)

The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below, namely, 1 U file is a file made by W to be used for the equipment of the victimized company. ② The victimized company and W were to use the above file in the situation where W was externally confidential. Even if the victimized company did not know the content of the above file, the information on the function of the file is delivered. ③ It is not always a trade secret but a file made to reflect specific technological capabilities in a specific hardware. If the file is not a trade secret, it can be a trade secret. 4 injured company developed the so-called No. 79 and the so-called No. 78 in order to practice the above file. Thus, if the damaged company did not know the content of the so-called No. 3, it is reasonable to view the above file as a trade secret separate from the above two file. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above part of the file could not be used separately from the W No. 320, May 20, 2002.

D. Determination on the part on the use of trade secrets

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the act of a person obligated to maintain a trade secret according to a contractual relationship, etc. using or disclosing the trade secret for the purpose of obtaining improper profits or causing damage to the owner of the trade secret." The term "use of a trade secret as a type of infringement of a trade secret" under the above provision refers to an act of directly or indirectly using it for the purpose of the original use of the trade secret, or for research or development activities, etc., and specifically specific as an act of using it in business activities by using it as a type of infringement of the trade secret (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da1928, Jun. 9, 1998). Meanwhile, if an actor initiates the use of a trade secret in close vicinity of his/her business activities under the intent to use or utilize it in relation to the trade secret (where the use of a trade secret is in the form of electromagnetic wave, the act of using the trade secret in question beyond the storage stage is prohibited by the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do391, Apr. 12, 20120).

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the lower court as duly admitted and examined by the evidence, the Defendant is recognized to unlawfully use all of the instant technical files, including enforcement files and creation files (net Nos. 72 through 75, 84), design drawings and document files (nets 62 through 66, 70, 71), and documents files (nets 62 through 66, 70, 71). Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake

① Although the Defendant entered a confidentiality agreement with the victimized Company, the instant technology file was leaked without permission of the victimized Company. After entering Defendant C in competition with the victimized Company, the Defendant copied the instant technology file to Defendant C’s computer for business purpose, which was used as a server, so that Defendant C’s team members can also see the instant technology file.

② Some of the technical files of this case were stored separately from Samsung Electronic, “SEC”, “Dm”, “Dm”, and “Dm”, which mean a buyer of Samsung Electronic. The technical files of this case were classified into “SEC” and “Dm”, and they were classified into “SEC” and “Dm” as they were irrelevant to the program elements of the victimized Company. As such, the technical files of this case were classified to refer to the development of equipment to be supplied to Samsung Electronic and Dms intentionally. Of them, some of the files were found to have been changed into “Cmncor”, which refers to the victimized Company contained in the file, to “Cmncor” and “Cmncor”, and some of the technical files of this case are deemed to have been perused and perused to manufacture ice equipment to be supplied to Samsung Electronic.

(3) At the time of the examination of the suspect, the Defendant made No. 3, BY No. 1, B, B, B, B, 3, B (B, No. 11, B, B, 13, B, 14, B, B, 41, B, 44, B, 45) in the order of 6, B (27, B, 31, B, 36, B (31, 34, 36, B, B, 36, B, 36, 36, B, B, 47, 45) of the technical files of this case.

④ 피고인은 검찰 피의자신문 당시 피고인 C에 입사한 후에는 모든 소스코드를 레이저 제어 프로그램이라고 불렀던 피해 회사에서 와는 달리 레이저 MMI와 레이저 시퀀스를 구분하여 레이저 시퀀스의 소스코드들만 레이저 제어 프로그램으로 불렀고, 그 소스코드들은 독자적으로 만들었다고 진술하였으나, 레이저 시퀀스의 파일 중 CD 파일은 이 사건 기술파일 중 BL(순번 47), BR(순번 55), CE(순번 59), CF(순번 85) 파일(그 중 일부 파일은 그 내용이 일부 수정되었다)을 참조 연동하고 있는 것으로 보아, 피고인은 새로운 레이저 시퀀스 프로그램을 제작함에 있어서 이 사건 기술파일을 열람 및 참조한 것으로 보인다.

⑤ The instant file that the Defendant applied to the racering equipment cannot be carried out independently only for a part of the file, and if the expansion of the files files files files file with a “h” and “cp” files to be carried out normally, the files need to be additionally filed, and if the files are deleted or changed even for a single file to be seeable, all the linked files should be corrected.

(6) At the time of interrogation of suspect, Defendant B made a statement to the effect that “the X file kept by Defendant at the time of interrogation of suspect” and BV (S No. 67) and BW (S No. 68) files received from Defendant, and Defendant B made a statement to the effect that “the file was used in the equipment test by installing the CG (S No. 72), AM (S. No. 73), N (S. 74), and CH (S. No. 75) files in the ractor ice equipment.” The instant technical file was copied in the first computer, and some of the instant technical files were deleted in the process of manufacturing programs necessary for the equipment operation of Defendant C. It appears that Defendant B and0 also made a new program by referring to some or all of the instant technical files, and used them in the test to apply the equipment of the program.

7) As to the use of trade secrets prohibited by the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, a trade secret code does not necessarily mean that the relevant source file is operated in an action file to the extent that it serves as an actual equipment. As such, as in the instant case, if the Defendant, by viewing and referring the technology file of this case, made part of the technology file fit for Defendant C’s equipment, made it possible for Defendant C to revise it in line with Defendant C’s equipment, and put it into compliance file in accordance with Defendant C’s use, and if the source files are linked to each other, it can be deemed that the entire source of this case was used or used for its intended purpose.

③ The Defendant asserted that only 20 files were perused and used among the instant technology files. However, the Defendant applied part of the instant technology files to the rashing equipment that was supplied to Samsung Industries at the time of interrogation of the prosecution, and stated that part of the instant technology files were applied to the rash ice equipment that was made in 2 weeks after entering the prosecution, and that part of the instant technology files were applied to the rash ice ice equipment that was made in 2 weeks after entering the prosecution. As such, the aforementioned files are the structure that connects the instant technology files with reference to other files, the Defendant appears to have produced a new program by ascertaining the algorithm and logical structure by viewing and referring the instant technology files. As such, it may be inferred that not only 20 files in question but also the entire technological files of

① Meanwhile, the composition or parts of the racer equipment produced by the victimized Company and Defendant C are different. While the technology files in the instant technology files are composed of soft codes or implementation files for the composition of the victimized Company and the operation of its parts, since the technology files in the instant technology files are mutually referenced and connected, and they are not carried out if any one file is deleted or modified, it should undergo the process of verifying whether they are carried out in the process of deletion or modification. The Defendant produced programs by including unnecessary files without considerable part of the verification process due to lack of time in manufacturing racer screen at 2 weeks after entry. In light of the relationship between the technology files in the instant case and the actual use method, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant used the program for the production of the equipment in the instant technology files, even if it is impossible to use Defendant C’s equipment among the technological files in the instant technology files, by means of perusal and reference.

① From June 2009 to March 2010, the Defendant recognized that the design drawings and document files among the instant technical files were perused and stored after correcting them. Even if the Defendant used them as educational materials without using them for the production, sale, etc. of goods according to the original purpose of use of trade secrets, such act constitutes an indirect use in business activities by utilizing them in research and development projects, etc., and such act constitutes an unlawful use under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

E. Judgment on the part of occupational breach of trust

1) Whether an action file is not a major business asset

As seen earlier, since the technology file of this case is linked to mutual reference, if one file is deleted or revised, it is most not executed, and its total constitutes trade secret of the damaged company, and therefore, it constitutes a major asset for business use of the victimized company. Thus, the defendant's act related to the execution file falls under the crime of occupational breach of trust. Thus, the defendant's argument on this part is without merit.

2) Calculation of property gains arising from the Defendant’s breach of trust

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business commits an act in violation of one's duty and obtains pecuniary benefits or causes a third party to obtain such benefit, thereby causing property damage to the principal. Here, property damage includes not only a real loss but also a case where a risk of actual property damage has been caused, and the judgment on whether property damage has occurred should be grasped from an economic perspective without legal judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1375, Nov. 21, 1995).

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor specified the financial benefits by "the defendant and the defendant C obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 4,118,841,283 through the amendment of the indictment and caused financial losses equivalent to the same amount to H which is the victimized company." However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to prove that the defendant and the defendant C violated the duty, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to the above amount, and causing financial losses to the victimized company. (The above amount is the amount of damage to the company recognized in the Civil Procedure Act (Seoul District Court 201Da45458) related to this case, but it does not fall under the amount of financial gains acquired by the defendant C, and the amount was reduced to KRW 30,00,000 from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 20144592). However, according to the above legal principles, according to the above, it is recognized that the defendant suffered financial losses, such as the amount of damage from the defendant's breach of trust and the amount of loss in property.

4. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant B

A. Summary of the facts charged against Defendant B

On July 15, 2006, the Defendant copied part of XS code among the MMI Software Program in the Nowon-gu, which was received by the victimized company during the business trip in Germany, and stored it in his own web mail (Y) but was not discarded, and became a stock company C on June 15, 2009.

around June 2009, the Defendant created part of X bar code, which is kept on the above individual web mail, as a file with the name of 70.BX at the C Co., Ltd. office, and around December 2009, the Defendant acquired and used trade secrets useful to the damaged company by using the EDA work for the Rac equipment supplied to the (jum) Rack ice, and disclosed them to the Defendant C, and had the Defendant and the Defendant C obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 4,118,841,283, and suffered economic damages equivalent to the same amount.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the charges on the ground that: (a) in light of the following facts: (i) if a specific technical information constitutes a trade secret, the holder of the information must have an independent economic value that “the holder of the information may benefit from competition against competitors through the use of the information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information; (ii) X bar code reproduced by the Defendant does not in itself include the technical idea on the rasher control program; (iii) it is difficult to view that the above file contains one file without any other source code, and it is not likely to significantly reduce the costs and effort for creating the rash control program, which is the technical information of this case; and (iv) it is not deemed that a specific source of technology is not a source code that can be prepared based on a general computer program, and it is difficult to regard the above source code as a trade secret or a major business asset of the victimized company.

C. Judgment of the court below

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

5. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the prosecutor against Defendant C

A. The summary of the facts charged against Defendant C is that the Defendant Company, who is an employee of the Defendant, acquired, divulged, and used the Defendant’s trade secret in relation to the Defendant’s business, such as the facts charged as stated in the above facts charged and the reasons therefor.

B. Determination

The applicable provisions applicable to Defendant C are the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013) which was enforced in around 2009 when Defendant A was indicted for committing the above crime. Article 19 of the same Act provides that "If a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation or individual commits an offense falling under any of Article 18 (1) through (3) in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions." Article 18 (2) provides that "any person who acquires or uses trade secrets useful to the corporation or discloses them to a third party for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the corporation shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not less than two times but not more than ten times the amount of profit on the property."

However, the prosecutor changed the facts charged that Defendant C’s property profit reaches KRW 4,18,841,283 due to the initial acquisition and use of the trade secret of this case, but the court below changed the facts charged that Defendant C’s property profit reaches KRW 4,118,841,283 due to Defendant A’s act. However, there is no evidence that can be known about the amount of Defendant C’s property profit due to Defendant A’s act (as seen in the above, the above amount is recognized as the amount of damage of the damaged company in the first instance trial of the relevant civil procedure, not the amount of property profit acquired by Defendant C, but the amount of monetary profit acquired by Defendant C was reduced to KRW 30 million in the appellate trial). Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot calculate the

Ultimately, the part of the facts charged against Defendant C constitutes a case where it is not possible to punish Defendant C as a fine pursuant to joint penal provisions because there is no proof as to the property benefits accrued from the use of the trade secret of this case, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit (as seen above, the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the point of occupational breach of trust is not recognized. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant C

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor on the ground of ex officio reversal as seen above, and it is again decided as follows.

【Discrimed Crime】

[Defendant A is a corporation established for the purpose of semiconductor equipment manufacturing, etc. according to the trade secret protection draft entered into with the victimized Company, which is a corporation incorporated for the purpose of semiconductor equipment manufacturing, etc., Defendant A shall not without permission divulge the damaged Company’s trade secret to another person or remove files, etc. from the outside of the company. Upon retirement, Defendant A shall return or discard all the trade secret data to the victimized Company. Moreover, even if a competitor’s duty has to be performed, Defendant A shall not be required to do any act such as referring to storing them in its computer, etc., and even if it violated its duty, Defendant A’s duty should not be required to do so, Defendant A’s act of using them in whole, which can be used in whole, for the purpose of semiconductor equipment manufacturing. Defendant A was not required to divulge the damaged Company’s trade secret data without permission, nor take them out to the outside of the company.

1. On March 2009, Defendant A acquired 85 files listed in the attached list of crimes, which are trade secrets, in a way that he illegally copied and stored 35 files owned by the victimized company, such as copying 401 files, which are trade secrets, by linking the PC owned by the Defendant and the Nowon-gu Incheon i apartment 101 Dong 201, 201, and the Nowon-gu, Incheon, with a franchise line, sharing the network and sharing the IP addresses.

2. On April 2, 2009, Defendant A retired from office Co., Ltd., a competition company, and then copied 85 files in the attached list of crimes, such as K, a trade secret, within C office at that time, to the company’s computer using the Defendant, and L’s computer for official use.

3. Defendant A used 85 files in the attached list of crimes, which are trade secrets, by means of using radrying equipment, etc. produced in C, a stock company.

4. As above, Defendant A, in violation of his duties, leaked 85 files listed in the separate sheet of crime list, which are major business assets of the victimized company, including trade secrets, thereby having Defendant and C gain pecuniary advantage in the amount, and suffered pecuniary loss equivalent to the amount, from H to the victimized company.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence recognized by this court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013); Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 201);

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

The trade secrets, etc. leaked by the Defendant for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, are important business assets of the victimized company in which the victimized company takes considerable cost and effort. Since the Defendant’s act of divulging it without permission, the victimized company caused the risk of leakage of the rash control program developed by the public, and thus, the Defendant’s crime is not easy, and it is found guilty of not guilty by the lower court, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant needs to be punished corresponding thereto.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant's act does not seem to have any property damage to the damaged company, and that considerable part of the trade secret data of this case has contributed to the development of the defendant in the course of performing his duties, it is difficult to sentence the defendant who has no criminal history to the punishment immediately.

In full view of these points and other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it seems reasonable to sentence the Defendant to suspend the execution of imprisonment as stated in the judgment below. Thus, the sentence shall be determined as per Disposition.

The acquittal portion

1. Defendant A (the point of occupational breach of trust);

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant violated his occupational duties, such as Paragraph 4 of the above facts charged, thereby having the Defendant and C Co., Ltd obtain pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 4,118,841,283, and causing pecuniary loss equivalent to the same amount to H, a victimized company.

However, as determined in Article 3. E. 2, it is reasonable to view the property benefits arising from the Defendant’s act of breach of trust as not equivalent to the amount. As such, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of a crime of occupational breach of trust that acquired and damaged the amount of property benefits arising from the crime of breach of trust in which

2. As seen in paragraph (4) of this Article, the entire indictment against the above defendant is without proof of a crime

As such, not guilty is pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. As seen in paragraph (5) of this Article, the entire indictment against the above defendant is without proof of a crime

As such, not guilty is pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and vice judge

Judges Gooon

Judges fixed-term United States

Note tin

1) In a case where there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the right of defense, the same criminal facts as the facts charged

In the above case, even if the court recognizes a different fact without going through the modification of indictment, it violates the principle of no accusation.

Not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1651, Jun. 30, 2011). Even if this part is recognized without any changes in the indictment, the Defendant may do so.

Since it cannot be seen that the exercise of the person’s right to defend actually incurs substantial disadvantage, it is recognized ex officio as above.

2) Article 18(2) of the aforementioned Act, amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013; and enforced six months after its promulgation, is the same.

Any offense shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won: Provided, That any offense subject to a fine shall be punished by a fine.

If the amount equivalent to ten times the amount of property profit made by the profit exceeds 50 million won, two times to ten times the amount of the profit in property.

A person who has not proved the amount of profit shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 50 million won by providing that he/she shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 50 million won.

The Act provides for the followings.

심급 사건

-인천지방법원 2013.10.16.선고 2012고단1838

인천지방법원 2017.9.21.선고 2013노3165

-대법원 2018.7.12.선고 2017도16545

참조조문

-부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률

-부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 제2조 제3호

-부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 제18조 제2항

-형법 제37조

-형법 제38조 제1항 제2호

-형법 제40조