beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
B, C, D, and F shall be punished by imprisonment for each year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. From the judgment of the court below, the part dismissing the prosecution (attached Form 2-2-40) among the charges of occupational breach of trust of Defendant A among the charges of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) of the judgment of the court below, if the files listed in the above inundation table No. 1 are carried out, the contents related to the computer screen and the individual container are displayed on the screen. In other words, if the individual container is connected, the file contents listed in the No. 2-40 are displayed on the screen. This is the same principle as the electronic document is moved to the designated location where the corresponding content is connected.
The public prosecution mentioned above Nos. 1 is limited to only the relevant facts that can be seen as the first one when executing the file set forth in the No. 1, and it does not include the contents of each file set forth in the No. 2 or 40 in the case of re-ruptures within the above file, but it is interpreted that each file set forth in the No. 2 or 40 in the No. 1 contains the files set forth in the No. 2 or 40. However, even if it is interpreted that each file set forth in the No. 2 or 40 in the No. 1 contains the files set forth in the No. 2 or 40 in the No. 1, it merely refers to the specific contents of the linked file set forth in the No. 1. 2 or 40.
Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the prosecution against this part of the facts charged, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on comprehensive and double indictment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(B) Of the lower judgment, each of the facts charged as stated in No. 47 and the facts charged as stated in No. 53 are one of the facts charged as stated in No. 52 and the facts charged as stated in No. 52, the time, place, and purpose of use of Defendant C’s trade secrets.