Defendant 1 (Defendant of the Supreme Court’s judgment) and two others

Kim Jong-dae, Lee Jae-ho (criminals) and Kim Jong-sub (trials)

Law Firm Mailing et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for two years, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

However, with respect to the defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant 1, 2] [Defendant 1]

1. Status of the Defendants

Defendant 1 entered Nonindicted Co. 1 on October 1994 and worked as the head of the engineering planning team of ○○○○○ Project Division from January 201 to work as the head of the engineering planning team of ○○○○○○ Project Division. Defendant 2, from June 2009, served as the head of the engineering planning team of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2009, was in charge of planning and overall tasks related to the national tasks.

Accordingly, the Defendants were in charge of the cost-processing related to the national tasks, the settlement of the corporate card for Nonindicted Co. 1 and the national book card, and submitted a confidentiality pledge to Nonindicted Co. 1. Therefore, the Defendants were not allowed to use the corporate card and the national book card only in relation to their duties and arbitrarily, and there was a duty to not divulge or use the confidential information handled outside.

2. Defendants’ occupational breach of trust

As above, while taking charge of the affairs such as cost processing and settlement related to the national agenda, the Defendants conspired to use the company called △△△△△△△ in the name of Defendant 1 and the company called △△△△△ in the name of Defendant 2’s wife, and to make payments with the corporate card and the national book card after pretending to be provided with services such as translation from each of the above companies, and making payments from each of the above companies, and then making payments with the corporate card and the national book card, and then making payments from each of the above companies.

가. 피고인들은 2010. 5. 25.경 서울 용산구 (주소 3 생략)에서, 해외기술동향자료 번역용역을 △△△△△에 맡기고, 번역비용 29,500,000원을 결제하는 것처럼 가장하여 임의로 ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇평가원 기술개발비카드{일명 국책카드, 카드번호 : (카드번호 1 생략)}로 △△△△△에 29,500,000원 상당을 결제하여 주고 △△△△△로부터 위 금액을 돌려받아 위 금액 상당의 재산상 이득을 취득하고 피해자 공소외 1 주식회사에게 동액 상당의 손해를 가한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2012. 8. 13.까지 별지 범죄일람표(△△△△△＆□□□) 기재와 같이 총 24회에 걸쳐 합계 319,657,000원 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하고 공소외 1 주식회사에 동액 상당의 손해를 가하였다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to act against their duties, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits and causing damage to the victim Nonindicted Co. 1.

나. 피고인들은 2010. 4. 6. 서울 용산구 한강로 3가에 있는 공소외 7 주식회사에서 연구용 소프트웨어를 구입하는 것처럼 가장하여 ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇평가원 기술개발비카드(일명 국책카드, 카드번호 : (카드번호 2 생략))로 공소외 7 주식회사에 19,580,000원 상당을 결제하여 주고 공소외 7 주식회사로부터 세금 등을 공제한 나머지 금액을 되돌려 받아 카드결제금액 70% 상당의 재산상 이득을 취득하고 피해자 공소외 1 주식회사에게 위 카드결제금액상당의 손해를 가한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2012. 4. 10.까지 별지 범죄일람표(소프트웨어) 기재와 같이 총 16회에 걸쳐 카드결제금액 70% 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하고 공소외 1 주식회사에 합계 363,122,600원 상당의 손해를 가하였다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to obtain property benefits by violating their duties and caused damages to the victim Nonindicted Co. 1.

3. Defendants’ violation of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence of Industrial Technology and Protection and Occupational Breach of Trust

The technical data related to the “high-efficiency 20-speed VRF (the multi-purpose method in which the oil flow is modified)” handled by the Defendants were certified as a new technology from Nonindicted Stock Company 1 to April 29, 2010 by the Minister of Knowledge Economy under the Technology Development Promotion Act or the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act. On April 26, 2012, the Defendants obtained a new technology certification from the Minister of Knowledge Economy as “the automatic diagnosis of installation of ○○○○○, and monitoring and utilization of operating parts” from the Minister of Knowledge Economy on August 23, 2012, the Defendants were not aware of the leakage of the industrial technology in the course of performing their duties.

As above, the Defendants were exposed to arbitrarily using the corporate cards, etc., and were audited by Nonindicted Co. 1’s management diagnosis team around August 2012, the Defendants conspired to use the technical data related to “high-efficiency 20 Empp development”, which is a central task, in order to receive money through negotiations with Nonindicted Co. 1 and receive money.

Accordingly, at around 22:00 on September 14, 2012, Defendant 2 transferred the files indicated in the separate sheet of crime (new technology-related materials from the external computer (PC) to the outside of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, including “one detailed file (one-day)” (one-day file on which the pumps of the artificialterter 1 were recorded in the planning team office of the engineering team of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Business Department, and one-day-day-oriented technology recovery technology, etc. from the planning team office of the above engineering team, and then released them from the outside of the new technology-related materials of the Defendant Co. 1, Ltd., on September 23:00, 2012, Defendant 2 took them out from the list of crimes, including “one-day-wide (one-day-day)” (one-day-one-one-day-one (1-day-one (1-day-one (37)-one)-day-1).

On September 22, 2012, at around 03:45, Defendant 2 cited technical data kept by the above engineering planning team in a bank. On September 23, 2012, Defendant 2 cited technical data kept by the above engineering planning team in four shopping bags. On September 23, 2012, Defendant 2 used technical data kept by the above engineering planning team in three shopping bags. On the same day at around 08:45, Defendant 1 used technical data kept by the above engineering planning team in three shopping bags, and loaded them on Defendant 1’s vehicle in a parking lot. Defendant 1 used the above vehicle while driving the said vehicle with Defendant 2, containing high-performance-based electronic design techniques for compressive concentrative concentrative lusing the foregoing vehicle, and the first Steering Committee for Management (related data leaked by Defendant 2).

As above, the Defendants conspired to disclose industrial technology in collusion with the Defendants to obtain unjust profits or to inflict losses on Nonindicted Co. 1, a target institution, for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing losses on Nonindicted Co. 1, which is an institution possessing industrial technology. By acquiring such technical data, the Defendants acquired financial benefits equivalent to market exchange prices of the said technical data, and thereby inflict property damage equivalent to the reduced amount of sales generated by leakage of the said technical data to Nonindicted Co. 1.

4. Defendants’ attempted attack

Based on the data leaked as above, the Defendants conspired to receive money by threatening Nonindicted Co. 1, and Defendant 2 threatened Nonindicted Co. 1 to the chief of Nonindicted Co. 1’s diagnosis team Nonindicted Co. 8 at a place in the end of September 2012, 2012, with the effect that “The money he embezzled is KRW 1 billion, but if such facts are revealed, Nonindicted Co. 1 may incur losses because not only the AE Headquarters, but also the entire company’s performance of the national tasks is restricted for a few years,” and “The issue of the cost of the national affairs ought to be resolved, and it is difficult for Nonindicted Co. 1 to open our country in relation to the expenses of the national affairs.”

After that, on October 12, 2012, Defendant 1 sent e-mail to Nonindicted Co. 9 and to Nonindicted Co. 10’s president who works for Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 10, and sent 2.9 billion won until October 19, 2012 to Defendant 1’s account, Defendant 1 sent e-mail to Nonindicted Co. 1’s media for implications, terrestrial implications programs, etc. and intimidation to the press and to inform the prosecutor’s office.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to threaten Nonindicted 9, etc., and attempted to bring money to the victim’s company when refusing to comply with it. However, the Defendants attempted to bring money to the victim’s company by starting an investigation.

5. Defendant 1’s occupational breach of trust

On May 20, 2010, the Defendant pretended to entrust foreign-standard information translation services to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ by arbitrarily settling the amount equivalent to KRW 950,000 with Nonindicted Party 1’s card (credit card No. 2 omitted) and received the said amount back from △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, thereby acquiring financial benefits equivalent to the said amount, and causing losses to the victim Nonindicted Party 1 corporation from August 10, 2012, as well as from August 10, 2012, the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 13,560,000 on a total of 15 occasions, as shown in the List of Crimes (Nonindicted Party 1 Company Card-Defendant 1) and caused damage equivalent to the said amount to Nonindicted Party 1 corporation.

[Defendant 1, 3] 2013 Highest 186

1. Status, etc. of the parties;

Defendant 1 is a person who has been married with Nonindicted 2 on April 15, 1999.

2. Defendant 1’s crime;

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(1) At around 23:20 on November 25, 2008, the Defendant promised the victim non-indicted 2 (the victim non-indicted 37 years of age) at the defendant's home of Sungnam-si ( Address 4 omitted) to no longer meet the defendant's non-indicted 5, and the Defendant continued to be aware of the fact that he had promised the victim non-indicted 2 (the victim non-indicted 37 years of age) at the defendant's home, and the Defendant stated the victim's oral dispute with the victim as "the Barari joi" during the punishment of the rari dispute with the victim, and put about about 25 m of the kitchen, which is a dangerous thing in the situation of threatening the victim, to stop this in the process of threatening the victim.

(2) On April 19, 2009, the Defendant: (a) around 22:30, at the Defendant’s house in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si ( Address 5 omitted); (b) as a matter of the teaching system with Nonindicted 5, the Defendant took a kitchen knife, which was a dangerous thing for the victim to shouldered and dangerous goods in the kitchen with the victim, and put the damaged part of the victim into a fnife, which requires approximately two-day medical treatment to the victim.

(3) On July 13, 2009, at the same place as in the preceding paragraph on July 23:20, the Defendant, at the same time as in the preceding paragraph, had the victim’s hand by the kitchen knife, which is a dangerous thing in which the victim had a horse dispute with Non-Indicted 5, left the victim’s hand in the middle of the treatment days.

(b) Injury;

(1) On July 22, 2008, at around 07:10 on July 22, 2008, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house of Sungnam-si ( Address 4 omitted), laid down the frame of the suspension of the number of shares, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment, by taking the victim’s fingers with his/her fingers, during the process of punishing the victim’s horse dispute with Nonindicted 5.

(2) On March 23, 2009, at the same place as in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant 23:30 on March 23, 2009, left the victim’s face by drinkingly going beyond the floor, and continued to go beyond the floor, and followed the victim’s body in several times, thereby going up with approximately two weeks of treatment.

(3) At around 23:00 on August 9, 2009, the Defendant: (a) discovered a professional projector on the part of the Defendant’s house located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si ( Address 5 omitted); (b) based on whether the victim was found and “it can be said that the birth is a kind of birth; and (c) in the present hospital, it is superior to the victim’s face and body at a time when the victim might die with cerebrovascular; (d) the victim’s escape led the victim to the escape; and (e) the victim was faced with the victim’s head, etc. for about 2 weeks, e.g., two weeks in need of treatment; and (e) the victim’s head.

(4) On September 17, 2009, at the same place as in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant 21:50 on September 17, 2009: (a) when the victim’s face and body was satisfyed due to drinking with Nonindicted 5, the Defendant satisfyed the victim’s face and body, and led the victim to an unsatisfying twice

(5) On October 8, 2009, at the same place as in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant 23:00 on October 23, 2009: (a) when the victim’s face and body was satisfyed by drinking with Nonindicted 5, the Defendant satisfyed the victim’s face and body satisfy; and (b) when the victim sat

(6) On November 20, 2009, at the same place as in the preceding paragraph, at around 02:30 on November 20, 2009, the Defendant: (a) took the victim’s mobile phone while suffering a dispute with Non-Indicted 5; and (b) taken the victim’s body due to drinking and growth, brought the victim’s unclaimed loss in the number of days of treatment.

(c) Intersections;

(1) On March 2010, the Defendant sent to Defendant 3 one time from Mapo-gu Seoul ( Address 6 omitted) to Defendant 1101 on the date of lower order.

(2) On October 201, 201, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with Defendant 3 in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 3 omitted) around the fourth day.

(3) On March 3, 2012, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with Defendant 3 in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 3 omitted) around the first day.

Accordingly, the Defendant was in conflict with the above Defendant 3, respectively, over three occasions.

3. Defendant 3’s crime;

The Defendant knew that Defendant 1 was a spouse, and even at each time and place specified in Article 2-3(c) of the above Act, had sexual intercourses with Defendant 1 and three times, respectively.

[Defendant 1, 2] [Defendant 1]

2. Defendants’ occupational breach of trust, Defendant 1’s occupational breach of trust

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 11

1. The statement of Nonindicted 8

1. A report on investigation (compact filing), a joint copy of a note, and a copy of a letter of investment;

3. Defendants’ violation of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence of Industrial Technology and Protection and Occupational Breach of Trust

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 9, 12, 13, and 11

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Certificates which are new technology;

1. List of crimes (data related to new technology from North Korea taken out by the defendant 1) and output attached thereto;

1. A list of crimes (data related to new technology from among external cargo leaked by the defendant 2) and output attached thereto;

1. A crime sight chart (data related to new technology from among outputs leaked by the defendant 2), and output attached thereto;

[Defendant 1, 3] 2013 Highest 186

○ Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, a deadly weapon, etc.) and an injury by Defendant 1

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 3

1. Nonindicted 4’s factual confirmation

1. Text messages (71 pages of investigation records) among each evidence or photograph;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

○ Points of communications between Defendant 1 and 3

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 3;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 2 in the prosecutorial investigation protocol against Defendant 1

1. Written complaint for divorce;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 36(2) and 14 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Technology Outflow Prevention and Protection Act; Articles 356, 355(2), and 354 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (2) and 30 (3) of the Criminal Act; Articles 352, 350(1), and 30 (2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(2)(i) and 55(2) and (ii) of the Criminal Act; Article 36(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 3(1) and (2)355(1) and proviso) of the Criminal Act; Article 258(1)381 of the proviso of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1)31 of the proviso of the Criminal Act;

B. Defendant 2: Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 36(2) and 14 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Technology Outflow Prevention and Protection Act; Articles 356, 355(2), 30 (2), and 30 (23) of the Criminal Act; Articles 352, 350(1), and 30 (2) of the Criminal Act (Article 2012, proviso 580724) of the Criminal Act);

C. Defendant 3: Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act)

1. Commercial concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Defendant 1, 2-2, proviso 580723)

1. Heavy concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Defendants) of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 3);

1. The part concerning violation of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence of Industrial Technology and Protection and occupational breach of trust

The defendant asserts that the Nowon-do has leaked after obtaining approval from the normal security system to conduct ordinary business, and that there was no intention to commit the crime of divulgence of industrial technology and breach of trust at all.

However, Article 36(2) and Article 14 subparag. 2 of the Act on Prevention of and Protection of Industrial Technology stipulate that “any person who has a duty to maintain confidentiality of industrial technology pursuant to the provisions of Article 34 or a contract with an institution possessing industrial technology shall be punished for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits, divulging industrial technology for the purpose of causing damage to the institution possessing industrial technology, using or disclosing the divulged industrial technology, or allowing a competitor to use it by a third party.” As such, not only cases where “the purpose of using industrial technology by himself/herself or divulging industrial technology to a competitor for the purpose of allowing a competitor to use it” but also cases where “the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the institution possessing industrial technology by means of threatening an institution possessing industrial technology” can be construed as punishment.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence: (i) around August 2012, the Defendant got the company’s use of industrial technology, which was committed with Defendant 2, to enter into the crime; (ii) the intensity of the investigation was high; and (iii) on September 14, 2012, Defendant 2 stored files containing industrial technology in his own personal computer (PC) in the company’s external hard disc and carried industrial technology out of the company; (iv) the Defendant, at the same time, carried industrial technology included in industrial technology out of the company; and (v) the Defendant, regardless of the need to obtain large amount of money and valuables from the company from September 22 to 23, 2012, obtained approval of the Defendant’s use of industrial technology from the company’s external hard disc for the purpose of using industrial technology to the outside of the company’s external hard disc; and (v) the Defendant’s use of industrial technology-related information to the outside of the company’s own out of the company and its own out of the company’s own motive or other related information.

2. The part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, deadly injury, etc.) and injury;

The defendant asserts that there was no injury to the victim by assaulting the victim, and that the victim's wife suffered from the victim mainly by blicking the kitchen knick while threatening the victim to blickly drinking, but it was generated in the process or by self-harm.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) the Defendant had discussed several cases with the victim, who is his spouse, at the time, due to other female problems, such as Nonindicted 5, etc., (ii) there were five of the total nine of the facts charged, and one of them remains at the hospital, and the four of them was issued, respectively. (iii) the Defendant did not express the “brupt by the Defendant,” due to the cause of the injury at the time, and the injury was issued to one of them. However, at the time, it is highly probable that the Defendant was unable to have concealed the Defendant’s her husband’s assault in order to treat medical treatment.” (iv) The victim’s testimony was made to the effect that Nonindicted 3 might have been exposed to the Defendant’s physical injury from the victim’s strokelor immediately after the date of her death, and that the victim’s testimony was also made to the effect that the victim’s testimony was made by the victim’s 20th of the injury.

○○○ 1 and 2: Defendants 1 and 2 did not fully recover from their useful public funds ( approximately KRW 800 million, Defendant 2 did not reach an agreement with the victims, etc.) even though they were in large amount of public funds. The use method of company funds was secret and planned, Defendant 1 attempted to leak industrial technology from companies and to take a large amount of money without going against it; Defendants 1 did not return the external hard disc containing industrial technology; Defendant 1 appears to have a large number of injury crimes and the degree of damage is not easy; Defendant 1 appears to be mainly responsible for the failure of marriage; Defendant 2 did not appear to have been used since the industrial technology of this case was leaked to competition companies, etc.; Defendant 1’s attempted to commit a crime of conflict; Defendant 2’s prior conviction and provisional seizure appear to have been subject to punishment; Defendant 2 did not appear to have been subject to punishment; and Defendant 2’s order and provisional seizure; and Defendant 2 did not appear to have been subject to punishment.

○○ Defendant 3: Defendant 1 gave birth to two children while maintaining de facto marital relationship with Defendant 1; however, there are no points to take into account the circumstances; Defendant was aware that the marriage has not yet been dissolved due to the fact that it was committed in this case with knowledge, and later, Defendant 3 was divided his mistake in this court; Defendant did not have criminal record; Defendant was sentenced to the same punishment as ordered by taking into account various factors of sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, and criminal record.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jong-chul