logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.01 2015노3564
업무상배임
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is not only the victim company's trade secret, but rather the victim company's materials are merely the stolen use of the materials of the U.S. company.

In addition, even though the Defendant did not develop or produce a new product using the instant data, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant kept the instant data, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On September 16, 2009, the Defendant entered the company D (hereinafter “victim Company”) located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and worked as the head of the technical research institute that researches and develops the “E” electronic circuits produced by the victim company. On February 17, 2011, the Defendant established G Co., Ltd., which is the electronic device developer of the Daegu-gun, around June 17, 201, established a company around 303 of the FF Building 303 of the Daegu-gu, and developed and sells a so set set of electric shock sup for about two years.

On the other hand, the victim company has continuously invested approximately KRW 1 billion in total of the government subsidies and the funds of the victim company from 2005 and has produced and sold the "E" using design and production technology accumulated through several errors in implementation.

As above, the Defendant, as the head of the victim company’s research institute, was in charge of the research and development of electronic circuits, and prepared a confidentiality contract stating that “to strictly keep secrets in the course of performing his/her duties and not disclose secrets,” has the duty to return to the company the data, such as drawings, circuit drawings, etc. acquired during the period of his/her service, and to not engage in any act such as reproduction, storage, removal from office

Nevertheless, the defendant, who retired from the victim company on February 201, is called "E" as shown in the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the court below.

arrow