A. Violation of the Act on the Layout-Design of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits

B. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

C. Occupational breach of trust

(d) Property in breach of trust;

(e) Misappropriation;

1.(b)(d) A

2.b.(c) B

3.e. C

4.(a) D.

5.a. E Co., Ltd.

The decoration and scambling (public trial)

Attorney Seo Young-gu (Defendant A, C, D, and E)

Law Firm Dwarfa (Defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellee]

January 11, 2018

[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. To order the defendant to provide community service for 160 hours.

72,622,433 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above additional collection charge shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.The charge of occupational breach of trust due to the leakage of files among the facts charged in the instant case shall be acquitted. [Defendant B] Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months: Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. An order of community service for 120 hours shall be

38,680,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above additional collection charge shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.The charge of occupational breach of trust due to the leakage of files and documents among the charges of this case shall be acquitted. [Defendant C] shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. To order the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours.

[Defendant D] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. To order the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours.

[Defendant E] The defendant is punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal 1)

【Maternal Facts】

On August 1, 2005, Defendant A joined F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) established for the purpose of semiconductor design, development, manufacturing, etc., and worked until November 30, 201, Defendant A, who was in charge of the role of the head of the digital design team, was in charge of Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) on December 8, 201, and was in charge of the role of the head of the digital design team. In this case, Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) only when it refers to a stock company, the name of “Co., Ltd.

Defendant B, who was employed by the injured company on August 1, 2005 and was in charge of designing the semiconductor circuit until July 2012, was working in G, a corporation established for the purpose of semiconductor development, etc.

Defendant C was the representative director of H established for the purpose of developing electronic parts from June 17, 2009 to March 30, 2012, and on June 14, 2012, Defendant C was sentenced to three years of the suspension of execution of one year and six months, and a fine of 710,00,000 won in the Seoul Southern District Court due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 2012. Defendant D is a person operating the said company as the representative director of Defendant E from June 12, 201 to August 8, 2011.

Defendant E is a company established on December 8, 201 for the purpose of electronic parts manufacturing business, etc.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Act on the Layout-Design of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits of Defendant A or D;

No person shall use or infringe a layout-design right of a semiconductor circuit, the creation of which is registered, without permission.

Nevertheless, the Defendants were willing to produce and sell semiconductor chips. From July 2010 to February 201, Defendant A manufactured a layout-design (L semiconductor chips) containing a layout-design similar to the part of the POR of the K semiconductor chips of the victimized company at the office of the victimized company located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul from July 201, and from February 201, Defendant A produced a layout-design (L semiconductor chips) on the basis of the aforementioned layout-design after the transition from employment to E. Defendant D conspired to sell the Defendant and M semiconductor chips as the representative director of the E. Meanwhile, at the time of Defendant A’s manufacture of L and M semiconductor chips, the establishment of the layout-design on the PPO chips of the victimized company was not registered, and the establishment of the layout-design was registered with N0 “NM” and P registration number.

As seen above, even with the knowledge that M semiconductor chips infringed the registration number of the victimized company, the Defendants sold 2,196,476,771 won at the market price during the period from November 25, 2013, thereby infringing the semiconductor design right of the victimized company.

2. Defendant E’s representative director D, employee A, etc. who violated the Act on the Layout-Design of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits, committed an infringement of the right of guidance on the Defendant’s business as prescribed in paragraph (1).

3. Defendants A and B’s occupational breach of trust

around July 2010, Defendant A received a proposal from H representative director C, the same kind of company as the victimized Company, to make a new semiconductor-design that carries out functions similar to the semiconductor chips supplied by H, and Defendant B received a proposal from the victimized Company’s office to offer money in return for the design of a new semiconductor-design similar to the semiconductor chips of the victimized Company A. On December 2010.

The defendants are those in charge of the development and manufacture of semiconductors in the injured company, and they are not allowed to use semiconductor layout-design and related technology of the victimized company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits through a pledge concluded with the victimized company and a confidentiality pledge, etc. Even though they have duties to work for the benefit of the victimized company, the defendants A conspired to design semiconductor layout-design as requested by C in dividing the digital part of semiconductor layout-design, and the part of semiconductor layout-design as part of semiconductor design by the day of semiconductor layout-design.

On February 2, 2011, Defendant A issued to C a new semiconductor layout-design design (Lrep chip) that is designed by dividing the semiconductor layout-design into the Arabics of semiconductor layout-design by using a total of five semiconductor layout-design designs including R (registration number S), "O (registration number P), "T (registration number U)," "V (registration number M)", and "X (registration number Y)".

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make and deliver a new semiconductor layout-design similar to the semiconductor layout-design drawings of the victimized company, which are the main business assets of the victimized company, to C, thereby having C gain profits in the amount and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victimized company.

4. Property in breach of trust by Defendant A and B;

In return for the delivery of a new semiconductor layout-design designed by using semiconductor layout-design, etc. of the victimized company as set forth in paragraph (3), the Defendants received a total of KRW 72,622,433 on seven occasions as set out in Table 1 below. Defendant B received a total of KRW 38,680,000 in total on three occasions as set out in Table 2 below. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to handle another’s business and acquired property benefits by receiving property in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with the duties of the victimized company.

Table 1

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Table 2

A person shall be appointed.

5. Defendant C’s giving property in breach of trust

As described in paragraph (3), the Defendant paid KRW 72,622,433 in total on seven occasions, as shown in Table 1 of paragraph (4), to A, for the delivery of a new semiconductor layout-design which was designed by the use of semiconductor layout-design system, etc. of the victimized company A and B, and paid KRW 38,680,000 in total on three occasions as listed in Table 2 of paragraph (4). Accordingly, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation as to the duties of the victimized company A and B, and granted property or pecuniary benefits, respectively.

6. As stated in Article 4 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment in Defendant A and B, in order to pretend the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc. in receiving money and valuables in return for the production of semiconductor layout-design from Defendant A and B. As if wife A and others have transacted with C, Defendant A would have pretended that the sum of KRW 67,690,000 was remitted to the National Bank Account in the name of Defendant AH, a borrowed account used by Defendant A, which is a borrowed account in the name of Defendant A, with the following table 3, and that Defendant B would have pretended the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc. by receiving KRW 67,690,000 in total six times as listed in the following table 3. As if Defendant B had a transaction with Defendant B, Defendant B would have pretended the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc. by receiving KRW 38,680,000 in total three times in total.

Table 3

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Table 4

A person shall be appointed.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record

1. Legal statement of the witness AO;

1. Statement in the protocol of examination of the witness to the AP of this court;

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the defendant A, B, C, and D;

1. Examination protocol of Q by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of AR and AS;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning AT;

1. A copy of the written complaint, written opinion (AO), and F defense counsel's opinion;

1. Investigation report (report on the arrangement of answers to inquiries by victim companies), - reorganization of the contents of answers, text of answers to inquiries, and accompanying materials;

1. A certified copy of each company register;

1. A copy of the F Employment Rules;

1. A copy of the membership pledge, or a copy of the private employee (AR, etc.);

1. A copy of the Decision 2013Kahap1184, a copy of the Decision 2013Kahap397, and a copy of the Decision 2012Kahap1533, a copy of the Decision 1533;

1. Copy of registration certificate of semiconductor layout-design;

1. A copy of a report on the design of semiconductors;

1. Personal data of the Employment and Labor Council;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment of an appraisal report submitted to theA);

1. Investigation Report (Voluntary submission of the details of the F semiconductor Development Costs) - Main e-mail and the details of development costs from 2008 to 2012;

1. An investigation report (voluntary submission of data, such as data related to designing the semiconductor chips), - the text of the e-mail requested to submit the data, 1 and 2 e-mail text, and one CD in storage of design-related data;

1. Investigation report (Submission of details, etc. of the sale of semiconductor chips), - Data on orders, electronic tax invoices, and sales details;

1. Investigation Report (Attachment of Data submitted by a victim company to a provisional disposition lawsuit) - Application for Provisional Disposition (1) - Debtor’s Answer, and Application for Provisional Disposition (2) 1. Investigation Report [Attachment of Related Cases (Seoul East Eastern District Prosecutor No. 2014No. 6657)] - Decision on Non-prosecution, Case Forwarding (Seoul Northern District Police Station), and Notice of Revocation of Complaint;

1. A investigation report (financial statements related to deposits related to suspect A, B breach of trust) - A copy of the statement of transactions, written statements (B), and written statements of transactions submitted by B;

1. Previous records: Criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of judgment, such as violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by a suspect);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 45(1) of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment"), Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment"), Article 3(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment"), Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment"), Article 3(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment"), Article 3(1)1 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment").

B. Defendant B: Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational breach of trust, the choice of imprisonment), Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (the occupation of breach of trust, inclusive, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 3(1)1 of the Undisclosed Regulation Act (the most of the acquisition of criminal proceeds, inclusive, the choice of imprisonment)

C. Defendant C: Article 357(2) of the Criminal Act

(d) Defendant D: Article 45(1) of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Defendant E: the main sentence of Article 49 and Article 45(1) of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act.

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant C: the latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment for Occupational Breach of Trust, which is the most severe punishment);

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment for Occupational Breach of Trust, which is the most severe Punishment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, B, C, and D: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant A, B, C, and D: each Criminal Code Article 62-2

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A and B: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A, B, and E: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsels of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Basic facts

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

(a) Development of Korea semiconductor chips of a damaged company;

1) The damaged company is a company that produces and sells terbs, various semiconductor circuits, and MCU (exclusive protocol to control certain systems).

2) Defendant A (a member of August 1, 2005 and a member of the office of director on March 23, 2007, a member of the board of directors on November 30, 201), Defendant B (a member of the board of directors on July 2005) and Q (a member of the board of directors on December 7, 2009 and retired on February 1, 2012) were the researchers of the victimized company who were in charge of designing and developing semiconductor circuits, and were in charge of designing and developing semiconductor circuits, and Defendant A, Defendant B, and Q were in charge of designing and developing the semiconductor circuits portion.

3) The injured company engaged in the production and sale of AU semiconductor chips and Q semiconductor chips in turn, and developed and manufactured K chips from August 2010.

(b) Registration of the establishment of a layout-design for semiconductor integrated circuits of affected companies;

1) In accordance with Article 21(1) of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act, the injured company registered the layout-design of semiconductor circuits used in the K chips as indicated below (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the layout-design rights of this case" and the registered individual semiconductor layout-design rights of 000.

A person shall be appointed.

2) S layout-design right is a part of the K semiconductor chips LD03. P-design right is a part of the K semiconductor chips PR4. U, W and Y respective layout-design rights are the main ridges comprising POR parts (hereinafter “U,W and Y respective layout-design rights”).

(c) Manufacturing and sale of L and M semiconductor chips;

1) H (representative C, Defendant C, 50%, D 30%, and BK 20%) manufactured and sold a rep chip cap that can replace semiconductor chips, which are installed on a static set set store for the purpose of smooth printing, even if the width was supplemented. On June 25, 2010, H concluded a contract with a victimized company for the supply of a semiconductor chip chips, and used Q semiconductor chips in the manufacture of the above rep chip chips.

2) A around July 2010, upon Defendant C’s request, completed the design of the digital part of the semiconductor chips, and Defendant B drafted the design of the part of the Arabic upon Defendant A’s request on December 2010. around February 2011, Defendant C received the completed design of the semiconductor chips from Defendant A, and as a result, remitted KRW 72,62,43, and KRW 38,680,00 to Defendant A in the name of H, respectively. H produced and sold semiconductor chips from around September 201 to Defendant A.

3) Defendant C was subject to a tax investigation with respect to H and was punished for a specific crime as a violation of the Punishment, etc. of Heavy Punishment Act (tax), as stated in the judgment below, Defendant C, a director of H, by establishing Defendant E on December 8, 2011, succeeded to H’s customer, development technology, etc.) Defendant E from December 201 to BJ (the representative director at the time of its establishment is D, and the present representative is D, and the company was established on November 1, 2010, and produced and sold a semiconductor chips supplied with waer BK, 2010. From around August 2012, 201, the application for provisional disposition with respect to L chips was filed, the semiconductor chips partially modified M chips (the semiconductor chips, the same as the semiconductor chips registered, and the same as the semiconductor chips were sold).

5) After withdrawal from the victimized company, Defendant A entered Defendant E and was appointed as a director on December 8, 201, and Q also joined Defendant E after withdrawal from the victimized company.

(d) Related cases;

1) On June 22, 2012, the injured company filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court (2012Kahap1533) for a provisional injunction against infringement of trade secrets against Defendant A, Defendant E, etc. (hereinafter “related civil first provisional injunction application case”), and the said court rendered a decision of partial decision of acceptance on November 26, 2012 that prohibits the production and sale of semiconductor chips on the ground that semiconductor chips infringed S and Pdesign rights. The case in which the provisional injunction was filed by the Defendant (2013Kahap1184; hereinafter “related civil first provisional injunction case”).

2) On February 18, 2013, the injured company filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court (2013Kahap 397) for a provisional injunction against infringement of semiconductor chips (hereinafter referred to as “related civil second provisional injunction request case”), and on November 13, 2013, the said court rendered a decision of decision to prohibit the production, sale, etc. of M semiconductor chips on the grounds that M semiconductor chips violate the detailed layout-design rights among P layout-design rights.

3) On April 22, 2014, Defendant E filed a civil petition with the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office demanding the revocation of registration of each of the detailed layout-design rights among the P layout-Design Rights, but the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified Defendant E of the refusal on May 7, 2014 on the ground that it does not constitute grounds for revocation under Article 24 of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act.

4) On August 4, 2014, Defendant E filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Daejeon District Court (2014Guhap103090) to revoke the aforementioned rejection disposition (hereinafter referred to as “related administrative case”), but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on January 26, 2017 on the ground that the right to request revocation of registration for each of the detailed layout-design rights among the P layout-design rights is not recognized under the relevant laws or regulations, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 17, 2017.

5) Meanwhile, on March 15, 2013, the injured company filed a lawsuit against Defendant E seeking injunction and damages for infringement on the ground that each of the instant layout-design rights of the victimized company was infringed by the production and sale of a semiconductor chips and a semiconductor chips (2013Gahap20644), and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 14, 2017 on the grounds that the M semiconductor chips infringed the right to assign a Plast chips (hereinafter referred to as “related civil principal case”), and the said judgment is pending in the appellate trial after both the victimized company and Defendant E appealed appealed.

2. As to the violation of the semiconductor layout-design Act in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the holding (Defendant A, D, and E);

A. Summary of the assertion

1) On February 11, 2014, the injured company filed a complaint against seven persons, including Defendant A and D, on the ground of the violation of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act, and then revoked it and filed a new complaint for the same reason. The public prosecution of this case is based on an illegal complaint in violation of the prohibition of inventory after the cancellation of a complaint under Article 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Act, and thus, the public prosecution should be dismissed pursuant to Article 32

2) A layout-design right is a requirement for creativity and is not a separate review of creativity in registering the establishment of a layout-design right. Therefore, it should be proved that a layout-design right subject to infringement is creative to ask a person who is not the holder of the layout-design right for a charge of violating the semiconductor Act due to the infringement of the layout-design right. However, the creativity of a P layout-design right is not proven.

3) Unlike the appraisal result of the Korea Copyright Commission in the relevant civil principal case, the part of P-Design Rights and LIT chips is not the same as P-Design Rights, and even according to the appraisal result of the Korea Copyright Commission, semiconductor chips can be recognized as identical only with each other of the aforesaid layout-design Rights, not as a whole P-Design Rights, and thus, semiconductor chips do not infringe P-Design Rights.

4) The layout-design of the part of the M semiconductor chip as a matter of the facts charged is partly amended by Q Q. The Defendants did not know whether the POTR circuit part of M semiconductor chip was infringed on the PP prior to the decision on provisional disposition. Since the registered layout-design is not disclosed, the third party cannot be known of what layout-design is registered. Since M semiconductor chip had already been registered before the establishment of the POchip was registered and the design was completed and the establishment of the POchip was registered separately, the Defendants did not have any intent to infringe on the POB right.

B. Determination

1) As to the legality of an indictment

A) Article 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the person who has revoked a complaint shall not file a second complaint again." The revocation of a complaint here is an expression of intent to the investigation agency or court that withdraws an intention to seek punishment of the offender, and such declaration shall no longer contain an intention to proceed with the investigation or trial procedures.

B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: (1) On February 11, 2014, the injured company submitted a written complaint to seven accuseds including the defendant A and D with respect to criminal facts in violation of semiconductors Act to the Seoul East District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter referred to as "victims' complaint") on February 11, 2014; (2) on March 25, 2014, the Seoul East District Prosecutors' Office directed the investigation of the defendant on March 25, 2014; (3) the above written complaint revocation statement stating that "I will not revoke all the complaint of this case to the defendant," and that "I will visit the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office and the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office to the effect that I would like to take the procedure of punishment against the defendants's complaint of this case," and (4) the injured company should not visit the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office' Office to the preceding prosecutor's office and the preceding prosecutor's office to the effect that I will not dismiss the complaint of this case for the same reason as the defendant's complaint of this case.

2) As to the existence of creativity

A) A creative layout-design right is created by the establishment and registration of a creative layout-design pursuant to Article 21(1) (Article 6 of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act), and "creation" is an act of producing a non-ordinary layout-design as a result of a person's intellectual efforts (Article 6 of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act); an act of manufacturing a layout-design is deemed creation even if it is composed of a combination of elements of an ordinary layout-design as a whole (Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the aforesaid Act); the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, upon receipt of an application for registration of the establishment of a layout-design, shall register the establishment of the layout-design except where the applicant refuses an application pursuant to Article 20(1) of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act (Article 21 of the aforesaid Act); where the applicant is not the creator; where two or more persons jointly file an application for registration of the establishment of the layout-design; where two years have passed since the date the person initially uses the layout-design for profit, or where the applicant fails to submit any accompanying material required for the application.

B) Specific determination

(1) Comprehensively considering the above provisions regarding semiconductors Act, registration of creation of a layout-design is conducted through a formal examination of whether a layout-design is submitted without undergoing an substantive examination of whether a layout-design is creative or not, and the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office cannot reject an application for registration of establishment on the ground that the layout-design is not creative or not. Furthermore, even if a layout-design created is not creative or not, registration of establishment is revoked by discretionary action. Ultimately, registration of establishment of a layout-design is not deemed creative solely on the ground that the establishment of a layout-design is registered, and whether a third party’s use, etc. of

(2) The layout-design of a semiconductor integrated circuit refers to a design designed to place a number of circuit elements and wires connecting them in parallel or in three-dimensional ways (Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the same Act). Since the semiconductor layout-design Act is subject to the spatial arrangement of circuit elements and wires rather than the function or characteristics of a semiconductor integrated circuit, creativity under the semiconductor Layout-Design Act is clear that the semiconductor is not the technical characteristics of a semiconductor integrated circuit but is related to the spatial arrangement. The same circuit is also a semiconductor integrated circuit under the semiconductor Layout-Design Act, and the performance and action of a circuit are considerably different depending on the difference in layout-design, such as the circuit element, structure or location of the circuit, and the length difference. Ultimately, as long as the size, number, location, mode of arrangement, the arrangement of wires, etc. of a semiconductor integrated circuit is not identical or similar, it shall be deemed that a layout-design is not ordinary, but is not a layout-design.

(3) Based on the aforementioned interpretation of the Layout-Design Act, the following facts and circumstances revealed with respect to whether the P chips are creative, fundamental facts, and the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) PO. BP professors submitted relevant administrative cases: (e., a layout-design right deviates from the category of ordinarily used layout-design (e.g., outside the scope of sample designs published in teaching materials or reference books). “The 12 pages for defendants)” includes a large number of small persons used in the P chips, and it is reasonable to view that the layout-design is identical to that of the P chips, and that the layout-design is not identical to that of the P chips, but is not identical to that of the P chips, and thus, it is difficult to find that the P chips are identical to those of the P chips which are not yet identical to that of the P chips, and that there are many elements that can freely change depending on the individual designer’s layout-design.

3) As to whether a semiconductor chip infringed a P-design right

A) Relevant provisions

(1) The holder of a layout-design right grants exclusive rights to use a layout-design for profit (Article 8 of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act); the term "use of a layout-design" means acts such as reproduction of a layout-design, manufacture of a semiconductor integrated circuit, transfer or lease of a semiconductor integrated circuit, etc. according to a layout-design (Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the aforesaid Act). Meanwhile, the semiconductor layout-design Act provides that a layout-design shall not have the effect of a layout-design in creative layout-design produced as a result of education, research, analysis, evaluation, etc., or in creative layout-design manufactured as a result of education, research, analysis, evaluation, etc. (Article 9 (1) 1 and 2 of the aforesaid Act) and the so-called so-called reverse design (Article 9 (1) 1 and 2 of the aforesaid Act), and that a layout-design made by a person other than the holder of a layout-design right does

(2) Under the penal provisions for a person who infringed a registered layout-design, a semiconductor does not clearly define what act constitutes infringement of a layout-design right. However, in full view of the legislative purpose of the semiconductor layout-design Act aimed at protecting the right of a holder of a layout-design right and promoting semiconductor-related industries and technology, only the act of manufacturing and selling a layout-design that is completely identical to a registered layout-design and a semiconductor integrated circuit, cannot be interpreted narrowly as infringement of a layout-design right. It is reasonable to deem that an act of reproducing a registered layout-design or making and selling a semiconductor integrated circuit is also an act of infringing a layout-design right.

B) Specific determination

(1) First, based on the aforementioned relevant provisions and interpretation, the following circumstances revealed as to the assertion that the part of the PPO chips is not identical to that of the PPO chips, namely, (i) the Korea Copyright Commission and relevant administrative cases appraiseing that the part of the PPO chips is identical with the PPO chips of the victimized company; (ii) the size, number, location, arrangement form, and pilotage of several circuit elements due to the characteristics of the layout-design right; (iii) the part of the PPO chips from the PPO chips and the part of the PPE chips are identical to the upper right and the lower right; (iv) the part of the PPO chips, which is deemed reasonable and reasonable to be identical to those of each story chips, and the part of the PPO chips, which is deemed to have been designed by changing the length, width, location, and location of each story chips to the extent that the two different parts were extremely similar to those of the PPO chips 20.

(2) Next, based on the aforementioned relevant provisions and interpretation, the following facts and circumstances are revealed as to whether the part of the P chips among the M chips infringes on the P chips: ① The Korea Copyright Commission has appraised the relevant part of the P chips’ P chips’ respective layout-design rights and the semiconductor chips’s P chips’ use as identical; ② the size, number, location, arrangement of various circuit elements, etc. of the P chips’ use as the characteristics of the layout-design rights; ② The pertinent part of the P chips’ use as the P chips’ use as the combined length, width, location, etc. of the P chips’s semiconductor devices; ③ each part of the P chips’ use as the main part of the P chips’s layout-design rights’ use as the main part of the P chips’s layout-design rights; ④ use of the P chips’ use as the identical part of the P chips’s use of the P chips’s use as the identical P chips’s use.

4) Whether there was an intention to infringe on a layout-design right

A) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of the holding are based on the Defendants’ act of manufacturing and selling a semiconductor chip after AF to constitute infringement of a layout-design right. The Defendants’ intent of infringement of a layout-design right is not the time when the Defendants first designed the semiconductor chip, but should be determined based on AF, which is the time when the crime was committed.

B) As to the Defendants’ intentional act of infringement of a layout-design right on the basis of the above time, there was a decision to accept part of the POR circuit part of the LIT on November 26, 2012 on the ground that the POR part was infringed on the PP right. Thus, Defendant D and A, as the representative director and director of Defendant E, involved in the production and sale of the M semiconductor chips, were partly modified based on the L semiconductor chips after the above provisional disposition order, were sufficiently aware of the fact that the POR part among the M semiconductor chips was also infringed on the POR part. As alleged by the Defendants, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants did not know that the part of the POR part among the semiconductor chips was identical to the POR part of the K semiconductor chips (POR right or the design registration date prior to the establishment registration date) at the time of the design of the semiconductor chips around February 2, 2012.

2. As to the taking of occupational breach of trust and taking of occupational breach of trust (Defendant A, B)

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Upon Defendant AC’s request, the digital part of the semiconductor chips produced and sold in H was designed for the use of the franchise store operation. In this case, the part on which the identity with the damage company’s K semiconductor chips (at the time of designing a semiconductor chip, the part on which the LDR part was not registered) was designed by Defendant B, and Defendant B was not informed Defendant A of the design of the part on a day identical to the K semiconductor chips. Thus, it was impossible to find whether the part on a day from among the L semiconductor chips was identical to the semiconductor chips of the victimized company. In addition, the Defendant could not be readily concluded that Defendant C’s representative purchased a semiconductor chip to purchase a semiconductor chip to Defendant C and caused the damage company to obtain a total annual sales amounting to KRW 2 billion from the victimized company.

2) Defendant B

A) Of the K semiconductor chips of the victimized company, the parts of LDO and POR circuits are merely those having general functions as blocks that are incorporated into a semiconductor integrated circuit, and even if each of the above parts of a circuit is different, they do not affect the function, and do not have any economic value high. Thus, among the K semiconductor chips of the victimized company, the part of LDO, S on POR circuits, and each of the layout-design rights cannot be a major business asset.

B) Defendant A, not C, requested the design of the part of semiconductor chips, and was not aware of who is, what kind of product, and what kind of use was used. Since Defendant B’s knowledge and long experience was designed as the day of one’s own, the part of the K semiconductor chips and the LDA chips are similar to those of the K semiconductor chips, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B had the intent of breach of trust.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary benefits or causes a third party to obtain such benefits through an act in violation of one's duty and thereby causes damage to the principal. The term "act in violation of one's duty" refers to any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of law, the terms of a contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act that is naturally expected not to perform, or by performing an act that is naturally expected not to perform, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business, and the term "when the act in violation of one's duty" includes not only cases where a real loss is inflicted, but also cases where a risk of actual loss of property exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

2) Comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances revealed with respect to Defendant A’s assertion: (a) Defendant A, while recognizing the fact that designing the semiconductor chips to C is causing damage to the victimized company, was recognized as designing the semiconductor chips in breach of the interests of the victimized company in return for the illegal solicitation by Defendant B on one’s own duties; (b) Defendant A was established as a person who is a director of the victimized company and was in charge of the digital design of the semiconductor chips manufactured and sold by the victimized company under the Commercial Act, the rules of employment and employment, or the principle of good faith; and (c) Defendant A had the duty not to use the relevant technology of the victimized company or not to design the semiconductor chips similar to those manufactured and sold by the victimized company, which are similar to those manufactured and sold by the victimized company.

② From the time when Defendant A received a request from C for the design of a semiconductor chip, Defendant A clearly knew that the semiconductor chip is designed to replace a semiconductor chip that was supplied to H operated by the victimized Company C.

③ Defendant A received in return the amount exceeding KRW 70 million from C. This is a large amount of money similar to Defendant A’s annual salary, and Defendant A received most of the amounts from Defendant A via a borrowed account.

④ Defendant A asserts that, instead of designing and manufacturing a semiconductor chips, H used Q semiconductor chips to be supplied by the victimized Company for the period of time. However, the time when the Defendant received the price for the design from the victimized Company C was July 15, 2010, and the time when Q semiconductor chips were concluded by H and the victimized Company on June 25, 2010, which was earlier, was difficult to deem that the damaged Company supplied Q semiconductor chips in return for the production of the semiconductor chips by Defendant A, and H was a position that only supplied semiconductor chips to any semiconductor chips including the victimized Company until a new semiconductor chips were manufactured. In full view of the fact that the time when the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of semiconductor chips with the victimized Company, the time when the victimized Company entered into the contract for the supply of semiconductor chips with the Defendant Company, which could not be concluded for semiconductor chips to be supplied for the production of semiconductor chips by the Defendant Company or the Defendant Company’s supply of semiconductor chips.

⑤ Defendant A asserts that he was unaware of the fact that the Arabic part of a semiconductor chip designed by Defendant B is identical to the semiconductor chip of the victimized company. However, in a case where the Arabic part of a semiconductor chip and the digital part are designed by a specialized designer in each field, even if the specialized designer in a specific field, the digital part designer appears to have known of the characteristics and pin information of the circuit for control (2,482 pages). Defendant A, who has overall control over the design and production of a semiconductor chip and requested Defendant B to design a semiconductor chip of the same chip as a semiconductor chip of the victimized company (2,483 pages of investigation record), it is reasonable to view that a circuit designed by the same designer was identical to a semiconductor chip of a semiconductor chip, and that a semiconductor part designed by the same designer was identical to that of a semiconductor chip at the time of semiconductor chips’s transfer of semiconductor chip to the same time as that of a semiconductor chip.

3) As to Defendant B’s assertion

A) An act of removing major business assets of a certain time, effort, and expenses for a large number of unspecified persons is occupational breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3915, Jun. 30, 201); (1) even if a semiconductor integrated circuit is established on the same circuit map, the performance and action of a circuit may vary considerably depending on the difference between the layout structure and location of the circuit, and the length of the ferry, and it is accompanied by considerable time and effort to find out a layout-design to realize the optimal performance and stability of the integrated circuit; (2) even if the layout-design was established and registered for the purpose of protecting the layout-design right of the semiconductor chips, it is reasonable to deem that the integrated device was used as an alternative for the aforesaid part of the semiconductor chips, and (3) even if it was intended and registered for the creation of the semiconductor chips, it is reasonable to have an additional method for the creation of the semiconductor chips to resolve the problems of the integrated circuit.

B) Even if the layout-design on the part of the K semiconductor chips does not fall under a major business asset, Defendant B is a person working for the injured company and designing the part of the semiconductor chips. Under the Commercial Act, the rules of employment, the duty under the good faith principle, or the duty to refrain from designing semiconductor chips similar to those manufactured and sold by the victimized company against the interests of the victimized company. ① Defendant B, upon the request of a third party other than the victimized company, was well aware of the fact that the new semiconductor chips were designed and manufactured, is not a new semiconductor chips, the part of the layout-design chips which was designed to be used for semiconductor chips identical to the K semiconductor chips which were designed by the injured company, and ② Even if Defendant B, at the same time, cannot be seen as having been aware of the fact that semiconductor chips were used for any purpose at the request of the victimized company, Defendant B and the part of the semiconductor chips which were designed to be used for semiconductor chips, which are similar to that of the victimized company.

3. As to the giving of property in breach of trust under Paragraph 5 of the holding (Defendant C)

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant did not request a third party to design and manufacture semiconductor chips similar to the layout-design of semiconductor chips manufactured and sold by a victimized company A, and merely requested a third party to design and manufacture semiconductor chips necessary for H products, and it cannot be deemed an illegal solicitation.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

"Unlawful solicitation" in the crime of giving evidence in breach of trust does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust. It is sufficient that it goes against social rules or the principle of trust and good faith. In determining it, the content of solicitation, the amount of relevant consideration, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, should be comprehensively considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3080, Jul. 23, 2015).

2) Specific determination

The following facts and circumstances revealed based on the basic facts and the aforementioned evidence. ① The Defendant requested A to design and manufacture a new semiconductor chips to replace a semiconductor chips supplied by a victimized company; ② the Defendant paid a large amount of money exceeding KRW 120 million to A and B in return for the design of a new semiconductor chips; ③ even though the Defendant was not well aware of the details of the design of a semiconductor chips, if A, who was in charge of the design of a semiconductor chips, designed and manufactured a semiconductor chips replacing a semiconductor chips supplied by a victimized company, using knowledge or experience acquired by the victimized company, could have easily predicted the circumstances of designing and manufacturing a semiconductor chips similar to the goods of the victimized company; ④ In conclusion, the semiconductor chips of the victimized company, based on the design of a new semiconductor chips, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant’s intentional solicitation of a semiconductor chips to be reasonable and reasonable for the Defendant to have committed a crime of breach of trust.

4. As to the violation of the Regulation on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (Defendant A B) in Paragraph 6 of the holding

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The money received from C is not criminal proceeds.

2) It is merely a receipt of design fees through a borrowed account to avoid heavy income tax pursuant to the progressive tax rate, and there was no objective to conceal criminal proceeds or to disguise the acquisition thereof.

B. Determination

1) As seen in the foregoing Paragraph 2, the Defendants’ act of receiving the design price for semiconductor chips from C constitutes the crime of taking property in breach of trust. Therefore, the amount that the Defendants received from C constitutes criminal proceeds stipulated in the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

2) “Fictitious act of acquiring or disposing of criminal proceeds, etc.” under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment refers to a disguised act of pretending as if there exist no grounds for acquiring or disposing of criminal proceeds, etc., or for devolving criminal proceeds, etc.. In such an act, such act may include a disguised act of pretending criminal proceeds, etc. to belong to a third party, such as depositing criminal proceeds, into the borrowed account. In a specific case, determination of whether depositing criminal proceeds, etc. into the borrowed account constitutes “an act of pretending the fact about acquisition or disposal of criminal proceeds,” the relationship between the actual user of the relevant account and the nominal account holder, the motive and background of the use of the relevant account by the user, and the specific circumstances of deposit transactions shall be comprehensively taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1004, Feb. 28, 2008).

Based on the above legal principles, even if the Defendants asserted on the instant case, the Defendants used the money in the accounts in the names of their families or persons in order to avoid the heavy income tax imposed when the money transferred from C is attributed to themselves, again, after being divided into several accounts, and it is clear that it is an act that pretends that criminal proceeds, etc. belong to any third person other than the himself/herself, and thus, it constitutes the fictitious act regarding the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc. under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) The crime of taking property in breach of trust

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least 50 million won, less than 100 million won)

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to water;

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, 2 years to 3 years and 6 months

2) Crimes of occupational breach of trust

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) 10

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Where the method of punishment is extremely poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, 10 months to 2 years and 6 months

3) Violation of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act and violation of the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act: the sentencing criteria are not set.

4. Scope of recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years (in cases of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set, only the lower limit of the recommended punishment for crimes for which the sentencing criteria

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and three years of suspended sentence; and

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

The Defendant, as an expert in semiconductor design, had a duty to not design a new semiconductor chip instead of a semiconductor chip produced and sold by the victimized company against the interests of the victimized company, but had a duty to not design it to a third party. The Defendant received the payment in excess of KRW 70 million from the illegal solicitation of C through a borrowed account, and then designed a new semiconductor chip instead of a semiconductor chip of the victimized company. In addition, the Defendant was involved in the design and production of a new semiconductor chip, which partially revised a semiconductor chip, by joining the victimized company E, after the Defendant retired, and was aware of the fact that the M semiconductor chip infringes a layout-design right of the victimized company.

In light of the duty and position of the defendant in the damaged company, the professional expertise of the defendant and the amount of money received in return for the crime, etc. However, the defendant does not seem to have an attitude to deny and reflect all the crimes. The victimized company is seeking a strong punishment against the defendant.

【Free Circumstances】

Although a number of semiconductor chips, such as criminal facts, have been sold, the ratio of contribution to the area or function of the POR circuit at which the infringement of the right of layout-design by the victimized company was involved is merely 2%. In the relevant civil principal case, the full deposit of the amount recognized by Defendant E was made in the relevant civil principal case. A layout-design at issue with the identity of the K semiconductor chips of the victimized company in L and M semiconductor chips is the part designed by B rather than the Defendant. The Defendant is the primary offender and the social relationship is apparent.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) The crime of taking property in breach of trust

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (at least 30 million won, less than 50 million won, and less than 50 million won) (Special Aggravations): Where a person has engaged in illegal business affairs in relation to Acceptance of Property

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, one year to two years and six months

2) Crimes of occupational breach of trust

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) 11

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Where the method of punishment is extremely poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, 10 months to 2 years and 6 months

3) Violation of the Regulation on Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act: The sentencing criteria are not set.

4. Scope of recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year (in cases of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set, only the lower limit of the recommended punishment for crimes for which the sentencing criteria

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and three years of suspended sentence;

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

As an expert in semiconductor design, the Defendant designed a new semiconductor chip (L) by using semiconductor chips used for the production and sale of semiconductor chips of the victimized company as it is for the price of approximately KRW 40 million. In light of the duties and positions of the Defendant in the victimized company, the amount of money received in return for the Defendant’s occupational expertise and consideration, etc., the crime’s nature is not weak. Nevertheless, the Defendant does not have the attitude of denying and opposing all of the crimes.

[G] The design and manufacture of a L semiconductor chip was led by A, and the Defendant was in charge of only the design part of the semiconductor chip upon A’s request, and was believed to have been clearly aware of the fact that semiconductor chip is irrelevant to the work of the victimized company, even though it was known that it was offered to a semiconductor chip supplier of the victimized company. Of L semiconductor chips, the layout-design identity with the damaged company’s semiconductor chip is at issue, and the degree of contribution in terms of the size and function of the damaged company’s semiconductor chip is at least 2%. The Defendant was not involved in the design and manufacture of the M semiconductor chip, which partially modified the semiconductor chip. The Defendant was the primary offender and the social relationship is clear.

3. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years;

B. Application of the sentencing criteria: since the crime of giving rise to breach of trust and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (taxes) for which judgment has become final, the sentencing criteria shall not apply.

(c) Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence; and

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

H, in which the Defendant had operated, supplied Q semiconductor chips from the victimized company to use them in the manufacture of a new semiconductor chips instead of it, the Defendant requested the manufacture of a new semiconductor chips instead of it, and offered a large amount of money exceeding KRW 100 million to A and B in charge of designing it in return. As a result, H produced and sold semiconductor chips and suspended transactions with the victimized company. The instant crime committed by the Defendant actively requested the manufacture of a new semiconductor chips and offered money by requesting the manufacture of a new semiconductor chips, the degree of violation of duties by A, etc., which designed a new semiconductor chips, and the amount of money and valuables granted by the Defendant to A, etc.

【Free Circumstances】

Since the defendant has a previous conviction such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it is necessary to consider equality with the judgment.

4. Defendant D

(a) The scope of applicable sentencing by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years; non-applicable sentencing criteria shall not be set;

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

The Defendant, as a representative director E who succeeded to H’s business, produced and sold Mchips with knowledge of the fact that Mchips infringe on a layout-design right, a major business asset of the victimized company.

[G] Design and manufacture ofM semiconductor chips led A, and the amount of semiconductor chips based on M semiconductor chips is designed and manufactured by C and A, and the degree of involvement of the defendant in the crime is relatively small. In M semiconductor chips, the degree of involvement of the injured company in the crime is nothing more than 2% of the POR circuit size or functional contribution of the damaged company in question. The amount of contribution of E’s responsibility in the relevant civil merits case is the first offense. The defendant was the first offender.

5. Defendant E.

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Fine not exceeding 30,000,000 won; and

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria: No sentencing criteria is set.

The acquittal portion

1. Violation of the Act on the Layout-Design of Defendant A, D, and E

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

No one shall use or infringe a layout-design right for a semiconductor circuit, the establishment of which has been registered, without permission.

Defendant A secured the design drawings of four layout-design rights (S, U, W, Y) among the layout-design rights of the victimized company at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the judgment, and produced similar layout-design rights. Based on these drawings, Defendant D conspiredd to sell the semiconductor chips similar to the victimized company. Defendant A and M semiconductor chips as the representative director of the victimized company. Meanwhile, Defendant A and D had completed the establishment registration (W,Y) of the AF final in the victimized company. Defendant A and D knew that M semiconductor chips were infringed upon four layout-design rights (S, U,W, andY) of the victimized company’s total layout-design rights (S, U, and M semiconductor chis) between the date and November 25, 2013, the victimized company registered the creation of the layout-design at the time and place, thereby infringing Defendant E’s semiconductor chips by selling 2,196,476,71 won M& chips 2,197,165.

B. Determination

1) The infringement of S-Design Rights

A) According to the basic facts and the aforementioned evidence, in the relevant civil main case, (1) in the Korea Copyright Commission and the relevant administrative cases, appraiser evaluated that the part of the Los chips is identical to the SB design right of the victimized company; (2) The part of the Los chips and the parts of the Los chips, excluding the left-hand part, are identical with each other; (3) the prosecutor’s office conducted research and design of the Los chips and printed out the existing circuit drawings of the victimized company; and (4) The part of the Als chips design was delivered a circuit map of the Los chips identical to the SS chips; and (3) based on A’s instructions, it is doubtful that the act of selling the semiconductor chips is not a layout-design right.

B) However, unlike P-Design Rights, in the case of S-Design Rights, it is insufficient to recognize that the documents submitted by the prosecutor alone are practically identical to S-Design Rights and semiconductor chips, and therefore, the Defendants’ act of manufacturing and selling the semiconductor chips is not sufficient to confirm whether they are identical to the pertinent circuit part of M-Design Rights and M-Co chips. Unlike P-Design Rights, there is no other evidence to confirm whether they are identical to the LOs of the S-Design Rights and M-Co chips. In the relevant civil principal case, the injured company asserted that Defendant E’s act of manufacturing and selling L and semiconductor chips infringed all of the instant layout-design rights of the victimized company. However, in full view of the following: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor did not determine whether LOs of M-Co chips infringed on S-Design Rights; and (b) the Defendants’ act of manufacturing

2) Violation of each of the P Layout-Design Rights (U, W, Y) in detail

A) According to Article 19(1) of the Regulations on Semiconductors, the creator of a layout-design may file an application for registration of creation within two years from "the date on which the layout-design was first used for profit-making purposes". In the event of an application for two years, the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office must reject such application (Article 20(1)3 of the same Act), and even if a layout-design is already already registered, if the application is filed after the lapse of two years, the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office must revoke the registration of establishment (Article 24 of the same Act);

Therefore, even if a layout-design established and registered is not revoked by the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, if it is found that two years have passed since the date of the first use of the layout-design for profit in the criminal case at issue as to whether a layout-design infringement has been filed, an act using the layout-design identical to the registered layout-design shall not be punished as illegal

B) Specific determination

(6) On October 14, 2010, the injured company supplied B/S semiconductor chips to BU on or after the first design of the semiconductor chips, and the following facts and circumstances recognized by the foregoing evidence. Since the damaged company's semiconductor chips were produced through China's B/S on or after October 14, 2010, the injured company supplied B/S chips to BU on or after October 15, 2010, and most performance tests, including LDO and POR circuits, were completed on or after October 16, 2010, were installed in B/S on or after the date of the first application for registration of the above semiconductor chips, and were supplied to B/V on or after the date of the first application for registration of the patented chips to B/S on or after the date of the second application for registration of each semiconductor chips on or after the second application for registration of each semiconductor chips, it is reasonable to deem the injured company's employees to have used each semiconductor chips on or 214.

3) Sub-committee

Therefore, each part of the facts charged is without proof of crime, and thus the defendants should be acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendants guilty of violating the semiconductor Layout-Design Act in the ordinary competition relationship, it shall not be sentenced separately in the text.

2. Defendant A’s taking of property in breach of trust and giving of property in breach of trust by Defendant C

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) Defendant A’s taking property in breach of trust

As stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment, Defendant A received a total of KRW 82,292,433, a sum of KRW 82,433, as shown in Table 4 of the judgment, in collusion with B, as a person who administers another’s business, in collusion with B, received property and acquired pecuniary benefits in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties, in return for the delivery of a new layout-design that performs functions similar to semiconductor chips of

2) Defendant C’s Misappropriation evidence

Defendant C paid KRW 82,292,433 in total on seven occasions, as indicated in Table 4(4), in consideration of the design and delivery of a new layout-design that performs a function similar to semiconductor chips of a victimized company, as described in paragraph (3) of the judgment, and provided property and property benefits, upon illegal solicitation as to A’s duties.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, as stated in Paragraph 3 of the judgment below, Defendant A received request from Defendant C to design and manufacture a layout-design replacing semiconductor chips of the victimized company, and received KRW 82,292,433 on seven occasions as stated in Table 4 of the judgment in return for designing the semiconductor chips with Defendant C, and received KRW 82,292,433 on seven occasions, as stated in Table 4 of the judgment. Meanwhile, Defendant A did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the guilty amount exceeding KRW 19,340,00 on July 22, 2011 as stated in Table 4 No. 7 of the judgment, and the amount exceeding KRW 19,340,000 on July 23, 2011; KRW 5,000; KRW 4,670,000 on July 24, 201; KRW 305,300,37,204 of the facts charged on breach of trust, and thus, Defendant C26364,20.

3. Defendant A’s violation of the Regulation on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On July 2010, upon receipt of a request from C to request the manufacture of a layout-design similar to a semiconductor chip of a victimized company, the Defendant: (a) and (b) around February 2011, the Defendant divided and designed the digital parts; and (c) B, in return, money and valuables from C were received from C in return, as if the Defendant’s wife A and others were related to money transaction with C, the Defendant acquired totaling KRW 77,360,000 from six times in total, as shown in Table 6(6)3, in order to disguise the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc., as stated in Table 3 of the judgment.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, the defendant received money and valuables from C in return for designing and manufacturing semiconductor chips which substitute for semiconductor chips of the victimized company C. It is recognized that he received 7,360,000 won through a total of six times as stated in Paragraph 6 Table 1 of the judgment in return for designing such semiconductor chips from C, but the defendant was not guilty of more than 19,340,000 won through a bank account in the name of AH as stated in Table 6 No. 6 of the judgment of the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant was found to have received 7,60,000 won through a bank account in the name of the National Bank in the name of AH, etc. on July 22, 2011, as stated in Table 6 No. 3 of the judgment of the court below, and there is no other evidence that found the defendant guilty of more than 19,340,000 won through a bank account in the name of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance.

4. The point of occupational breach of trust due to the leakage of the files by Defendant A

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

As a director of a victimized company, the defendant should not use trade secrets or major assets for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits pursuant to the pledge concluded with the victimized company and the confidentiality pledge, etc., and even if there was a duty to keep secrets and to return the storage media on which the above information was recorded or to discard it without fail when retired, the defendant obtained financial benefits equivalent to the amount of the market exchange price in the USB owned by the defendant and acquired financial benefits by transferring the files owned by the victimized company from the damaged company office in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, to a portable storage device, such as the list 1 of crimes, around November 2011, and storing them in the USB owned by the defendant.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

If an employee of a company divulges a trade secret to a competitor or ships it out without permission for the purpose of using it for his own interest, the act of taking it out constitutes an occupational breach of trust, and even if it is not disclosed to many unspecified persons even if it is not a trade secret, and is a major business asset produced by an employer using considerable time, effort and expenses, the act of taking it out constitutes an occupational breach of trust. Even if the employee of the company lawfully takes out the trade secret or the material which is a major business asset, and the act of taking it out does not constitute an occupational breach of trust, if it was leaked to the competitor or did not return it to or discard it for the purpose of using it at the time of withdrawal, even though he was obligated to return it to the competitor or to destroy it, such act shall be deemed as an occupational breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do90

2) Specific determination

A) In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed from the basic facts and the aforementioned evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant carried out the files owned by 9 victimized companies by moving them to a portable storage device, as stated in the list of crimes, as stated in the facts charged. Moreover, it is insufficient to conclude that the Defendant did not return or destroy the files owned by the victimized company with intent to commit breach of trust, i.e., for the purpose of divulging them to a competitor or using them for his own interest.

① The Defendant asserts that, by consistently using the mobile storage device from the investigative agency, the Defendant did not take out the file owned by the victimized Company by using the mobile storage device from the investigative agency, but only stored the Defendant’s computer on the electronic mail due to business needs while working at home at the time of the victimized Company, and that when a civil lawsuit was continued between the victimized Company and the E, the Defendant stored the data in the USB-type storage device for the purpose of responding to the lawsuit. AP, an employee of the victimized Company, stated that it is possible to confirm the electronic mail of the victimized Company at a place other than the office, and that the electronic mail is stored in the HB-type drive when confirming the electronic mail, this is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the electronic mail is held.

② As a result of the Defendant’s search and seizure of the Defendant’s E office, the total of nine files listed in the list of crimes stored in the USB mobile storage device was confirmed. However, it is confirmed that most of the nine files were related to the lawsuit as 'provisional disposition litigation' and 'second questioning', and the date of creation also was about three years after the Defendant retired from the office. This circumstance is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the said nine files were stored in comparison for the lawsuit with the victimized company. This circumstance is rather consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the said nine files were stored in the USB mobile storage device stored in the office. The mere fact that the Defendant was found in the USB mobile storage device stored in the office, the Defendant removed from the victimized company and carried the said nine files out by storing the said nine files in the USB mobile storage device, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(3) Employment contracts, employment rules, written oaths, private employees, etc. concluded between the defendant and victimized company.

In light of the content, it is difficult to find out that there is no duty to destroy materials related to the victimized company that the Defendant was in his/her custody, other than the fact that the Defendant retired from the victimized company and did not divulge trade secrets, and that the victimized company requested the destruction of materials of the victimized company that the victimized company was in his/her custody. While the victimized company was in his/her lawsuit with the victimized company, the Defendant submitted the content of the electronic mail that was received at the time when the victimized company was working in the victimized company through an attorney-at-law. This is to clarify when the victimized company was using the K semiconductor chips for the first purpose of profit. This is limited to the Defendant’s use for responding to the lawsuit rather than using them for E or the Defendant’s business, etc., rather than using them for E or the Defendant’s business. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant leaked the said nine files and used them for E or the Defendant.

⑤ Examining the content of nine files in the list 1 of crimes, the documents, such as the emails received by the Defendant in the course of performing the duties of the victimized company, including the test information, schedule, etc. of major products of the victimized company. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the period of preparation falls under an asset with an important value to the extent that the Defendant’s prior test schedule, etc. of the products of the victimized company constitutes an asset with a competitive benefit to a third party, as it is around October through November 201, 201 and one year.

B) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a purpose to use the said nine files for his own interest at the time of release of the said nine files. Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Defendant did not consent to the public announcement of the verdict of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition

5. The point of occupational breach of trust due to the leakage of files and documents by Defendant B

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The defendant, who worked as a researcher of the victimized company, shall not use trade secrets or major assets for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits in accordance with a pledge concluded with the victimized company and a confidentiality pledge, etc., and when the information he/she acquired during his/her service is kept confidential, he/she had a duty to return the storage device on which the above information is recorded or destroy it without fail.

1) Notwithstanding the above occupational duties, the Defendant: (a) around July 201, the importance of “BW” products without the consent of the victimized company’s office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I J; (b) transferred files owned by 16 victimized companies, such as “BX documents, in which the process derived from the experiment results is stored, to a mobile storage device; and (c) acquired economic benefits equivalent to the amount of the U.S. market exchange price by storing the files in the Egypt North Korea owned by the Defendant; and (d) caused the damage to the damaged company at an equal price;

2) At the same date, at the same place, a document, which contains a detailed technical analysis of “BY”, a kind of 5 kinds of business assets owned by the victimized company, such as “BY document,” without the consent of the victimized company, has obtained economic benefits equivalent to the amount of the market exchange price in the manner of keeping it in the Defendant’s residence, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the victimized company.

B. Determination

1) According to the basic facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the fact that each file or document is set out by the Defendant who set off the damaged company and carried out the files or documents listed in the list 2 and 3 of crime sights, each file recorded in the list 2 of crime sights includes various test reports and the specific information of semiconductor chips, which are related to the national policy research tasks of the victimized company, participating in the status of the responsible research institute, and each document listed in the list 3 of crime sights includes any semiconductor chips provided by the transaction partner of the victimized company, and any semiconductor chip information of the victimized company.

2) However, in light of the relevant legal principles as seen in Article 5-2(b)1, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the health team, basic facts, and the evidence presented earlier are insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant did not remove, at the time of departure, the files and documents owned by the victimized company with intent to breach of trust, or not return or discard them for the purpose of divulging them to the competitor or using them for his own interest.

① No evidence can be found to deem that the Defendant leaked the files or documents owned by the victimized company to the outside or competitive company and used them for a third party or the Defendant.

② Even in light of the content of an employment contract, employment rules, a written oath, and private staff entered into between the Defendant and the victimized Company, the Defendant did not have an obligation to destroy materials related to the victimized Company, which the Defendant kept in his/her custody, in addition to the content that the victimized Company retires and does not divulge trade secrets, and requested the victimized Company to destroy materials of the victimized Company. There is no circumstance that the victimized Company has

(3) The AR and the representative AO of the victimized company, who has been in charge of the national policy research task in the victimized company, have the history of criminal punishment due to the occurrence of the task, and there is room for the defendant to think that there is a need to keep relevant data in preparation for the case of the issue of the national policy research task he/she has in charge of.

3) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the defendant did not consent to the public notice of the verdict of innocence, the defendant does not disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article

The presiding judge; and

Judges in the order of precedence

In case of being unable to affix a signature or seal due to judge classical leave

The presiding judge

1) Based on the facts duly admitted and investigated by the court, the defendants' defense rights are infringed upon based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court.

To the extent that the facts charged were not modified, part of the facts charged was revised.

2) When the Defendants design a new semiconductor layout-design design design (L chips), a total of five layout-design rights have not been registered.

Defendant E, who succeeded to the business of H and H by means of semiconductor layout-design designed by the Defendants, did not have any semiconductor chips

On June 22, 2012, the injured company filed an application for a provisional disposition seeking injunction against infringement against Defendant E, etc., and AE

Registration number S, P each layout-design Right, EA Registration Number U, AF Registration Number W, Y Each Layout-Design Right is registered.

Defendant E suspended the production of semiconductor chips after filing an application for provisional disposition and manufactured semiconductor chips from August 2012 to August 2012.

The first step was on the basis of ‘1. Basic facts' among ‘a judgment on the argument of the accused and the defense counsel' (the details of their own).

I explained)

(iii) stable voltage and current in an internal circuit requiring a regugulop Outor or a power source voltage lower than the input power source voltage.

the supply of circuits;

4) On-board on-board, when the voltage rise, internal IC for a certain time at the time when the voltage reaches a specific voltage.

to ensure the stable initial action of internal circuits and sets;

5) Lives of semiconductors, such as plastic containers, which are ingredients for the manufacture of semiconductor IC (inteuit and integrated circuits) mean semiconductors, and washes,

Small-scale operations, which have been well raised by the spread, shall be chip.

6) According to Article 45(2) of the semiconductor Layout-Design Act, the crime of infringement of layout-design rights under Article 45(1) is prosecuted only upon the complaint of the injured party.

an offense subject to prosecution is an offense subject to prosecution.

7) The written complaint contains only "the date of submission" as " March 2014," and each of the certified transcript of register attached to the written complaint on March 25, 2014.

The latter is published on March 27, 2014, April 3, 2014, but a statement by AP staff of a victimized company that submitted a complaint and a victimized company.

AP visit records submitted by the attorney BN who represented for a complaint to an investigative agency (2,914 pages of investigation records) and records of the AP visit records

In full view of (2,916 pages), AP, BN, etc. visited the Seoul Regional Police Agency on March 25, 2014 and submitted a petition for accusation; and

It seems that the certified transcript of corporate register is additionally submitted at the request of investigators.

(viii)a design drawing indicating the function of blocks intended to be designed by the composition, size, and connection of each circuit elements;

9) B see that the prosecution designed a semiconductor chip and printed out the existing circuit drawings of the victimized company.

Writtenly, (2,475 pages)

10) Since the amount of profit in the crime of occupational breach of trust is not specified, one type which is most favorable to the defendant shall be selected.

11) Since the amount of profit in the crime of occupational breach of trust is not specified, the first type that is most favorable to the defendant is selected.

12) The remainder of the layout-design right, other than P-design rights, recognized as a violation of the Anti-Re-Design Act.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.