logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.08.21 2013노461
업무상배임
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the grounds delineated below, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The instant principal register, the terms and conditions of the resolution, the work instruction, the status of customers, etc. (hereinafter “instant principal register, etc.”)

(2) The Defendants cannot be deemed as a principal business asset worth protecting the victim company. As they produced products with a new principal and accessory condition regardless of them, the removal of the principal principal register, etc. of this case cannot be deemed as a crime of occupational breach of trust. 2) Since the Defendants cannot be deemed as having a duty of confidentiality on the principal register, etc. of this case, the crime of occupational breach of trust cannot be established.

3) If the victim company did not keep confidential and is engaged in production, anyone could freely access the above data, and thus, the Defendants could not think that the above data was confidential. In such a situation, Defendant B’s withdrawal from the victim company and the personal data stored in the USB metrmos, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had any criminal intent to commit occupational breach of trust. (B) The lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the judgment on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the profits accrued from the Defendants’ act of breach of trust in this case were 416,896,743 won.

2) In light of the fact that the Defendants do not entirely reflect unreasonable sentencing, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence of ten months, and two years of suspended sentence of one year, imprisonment of one year, and two years of suspended sentence of one year, which the lower court sentenced to the Defendants, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion.

arrow