beta
Text
1. The defendant is innocent. 2. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, from October 1, 2010 to November 19, 2015, worked as the head of the computer security program development team at Sungnam-si Co., Ltd., Ltd., the victim victim C601, and was in charge of developing the core engines of “E”, a hacking monitoring program.
The defendant has a duty not to leak or divulge the business assets of the victim company to the outside because he/she has kept confidential as well as even after he/she is in office with respect to electronic records, such as files related to the victim company, and prepared a confidentiality pledge to transfer the intellectual property rights of all products developed by the victim company to the victim company.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around November 19, 2015, retired from the above company, and moved to F, a competitor of the victim company, and came to use it for business purposes. The victim company, as the source code of “E” products sold from around December 2013 to G and H, carried out the source code of five security programs, such as I, which is an important business asset of the victim company, without permission, contained the source code of five security programs (hereinafter “the source code of this case”).
Accordingly, the defendant in violation of his duties, took property profits that could not know the market price, and suffered property damages equivalent to the same amount from the victim company.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecution and the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (the evidence No. 4614 of Suwon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Order 4614, the witness J, K, L, and M’s testimony record) submitted by the Defendant, even if the Defendant had objective facts found that the instant so-called Defendant carried the so-called bar codes out without permission in the outer hboard, the Defendant had the intent to commit occupational breach of trust.
there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(1) The defendant is working for the victim D.