Defendant 1 and five others

Forms of correspondence

Attorney Shin Tae-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1, 4, and 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, by imprisonment for a term of eight months, by imprisonment for a term of two years, by imprisonment for a term of two years, and by imprisonment for a term of six months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 170 days per defendant 1, 69 days per defendant 3, 3 days per defendant 4, and 1 day per day shall be included in the above punishment against defendant 5.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant 1, for two years for Defendant 2, 4, and 6, for four years for Defendant 3, for Defendant 5, for one year for Defendant 5.

To order Defendant 1 to provide community service for 80 hours.

Seized evidence Nos. 8 through 11, 18, 22, 41, 43 through 50, and 57 through 59 are confiscated from Defendant 1, 53, and 54 from Defendant 2.

[208Gohap1298: Defendant 1, 2]

Defendant 1, on or around January 2, 2003, was employed by Nonindicted Co. 1 (the Supreme Court’s judgment) and worked as the head researcher of the research institute, and on or around March 12, 2008, established Nonindicted Co. 3 on the ground that Nonindicted Co. 2 was the representative director, and on or around March 13, 2008, retired from Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, Defendant 2 was employed by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and Defendant 2 as research institute on or around March 4, 2003, and was retired from the research institute on or around June 19, 2008.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act;

No person shall acquire, use, or divulge any trade secret useful to the company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the company, and Defendant 1 was well aware that both of the EDC technology and Lithium and temperature cell technology of Nonindicted Company 1 were treated as trade secret and prohibited from unauthorized reproduction, reproduction, or removal, and prepared a security pledge after receiving security education on the same content, despite the knowledge that the security pledge should not be obtained, used, or leaked to the outside, the trade secret data of Nonindicted Company 1 should not be disclosed;

(1) On March 21, 2008, in order to design a factory to manufacture the first EDC product at the office of the Jung-gu counterpart Dong, Sung-gu, Sung-gu (hereinafter omitted), Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted), the following was sought to peruse the FDK process level from Nonindicted Co. 1, as described in attached Table 5, and to read and use 63 trade secrets owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 from March 2008 to May 29, 2008, but the intent was not achieved.

(2) On March 19, 2008, around 23:09, around 01:20 on April 13, 2008, Defendant 1’s e-mail account (Internet address 1 omitted) upon request from Defendant 2, who had worked as a researcher at Nonindicted Co. 1 Company on two occasions at around two occasions. Defendant 1’s e-mail account (Internet address 1 omitted) discussed by the Research Council in March of Nonindicted Co. 1, “SMT (0803.14 Practical Monitoring EST, SEALING material’s length change and reliability data, such as dry temperature and conditions, and total amount inputs for the purpose of product improvement.” This includes the core content of Non-Indicted Co. 1’s CA’s new design and development, which included the CA’s new design and improvement of non-Indicted Co. 1’s CA’s trade secret drawings, which was held on March 2008.”

(3) On March 21, 2008, around 08:37, and around 16:47 on April 9, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 1 used the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 2 by requesting the production of e-mail accounts (Internet address 2 omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 4, a Japanese Kaka Cyman, using the above e-mail account on two occasions, to produce the e-mail account (Internet address 2 omitted) from Nonindicted Co. 3’s e-mail in order to produce the e-mail products from Nonindicted Co. 3, as described in the above paragraph (2).

B. Occupational breach of trust

Defendant 1 prepared a security pledge, such as: (a) Nonindicted Co. 1’s office located in Ansan-gu 2dong (hereinafter 2 omitted) from February 18, 2008 to February 19, 2008 (hereinafter 2 omitted); and (b) Nonindicted Co. 1’s trade secret should not be leaked out to the outside; (c) despite the occupational duty, Defendant 1 violated his occupational duty; (d) linked to the outer hardboard prepared in advance on the computer used by Defendant 1 for the purpose of using it for the business of Nonindicted Co. 3, a like Nonindicted Co. 1, the same type of Nonindicted Co. 1, the company, in violation of his occupational duty; and (e) linked to the outer hardboard prepared in advance on the computer used by Defendant 1 for the purpose of using it for the business of Nonindicted Co. 3, which is the same type of the company; and (e) as indicated in attached Table 1 to 4, a trade secret of Nonindicted Co. 1, a major EDC technology, business and marketing.

3. Defendant 2

(a) Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act;

No person shall acquire, use, or divulge any trade secret useful to the company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the company, and Defendant 2 was well aware that Nonindicted Co. 1’s EDC technology, etc. was treated as trade secret in the course of business and was prohibited from unauthorized reproduction, reproduction, or removal, and prepared a security pledge after receiving security education on the same content, and thus, he/she should not acquire, use, or divulge the trade secret data of Nonindicted Co. 1.

Defendant 2 included core conditions, such as construction temperature and conditions, and total amount inputs, using the e-mail account (Internet address 3 omitted) of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (Seoul) around 23:09 on March 19, 2008, and around 01:20 on April 13, 2008, Defendant 2 included the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1, using Defendant 2’s e-mail account (Internet address 3 omitted), “SMT (0314 Practical Monitoring E-ST, SCEING material’s e-mail address change and reliability change data,” which were the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, which were the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1, 203; Defendant 1’s new e-mail address change and e-mail change for the purpose of improving products; and Defendant 1’s new e-mail address change and new e-mail address improvement were included in the CA document of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2008.

B. Occupational breach of trust

Defendant 2 knew at the date, time, place, etc. set forth in the above paragraph (a) above that both Nonindicted Co. 1’s EDC technologies are treated as trade secrets and are prohibited from unauthorized reproduction, duplication, and removal, and prepared a security pledge after receiving security education on the same content, and thus, there was a duty to not acquire, use, or leak out the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1. However, Defendant 1 obtained, at the same time, the amount of the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1 by divulging the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1, as described in the above paragraph (a), pecuniary benefits equivalent to the market exchange price, and at the same time, suffered a loss equivalent to the amount that may arise from the increase in supply to Nonindicted Co. 1 and the strengthening of competitive competitiveness.

[209Gohap32: Defendant 3, 4, 5, 1, 6]

Defendant 3 is a person in charge of managing and supervising the overall business of the company as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1; Defendant 4 is a person in charge of fund management as an executive director in charge of Nonindicted Company 1 from January 2003 to March 10, 2008; Defendant 1 was working as the responsible research institute for Nonindicted Company 1 from January 2003 to March 10, 2008; Defendant 5 was working as a researcher in the research institute for Nonindicted Company 1 from December 2003 to February 5, 2003; Defendant 6 was a person in charge of supplying medicines, catalysts, etc. used in Nonindicted Company 5 and Nonindicted Company 6 from February 5, 2003 to the date.

1. Defendants 3, 4, and 6 co-offenders;

Nonindicted Co. 1 continued to conduct a total of nine government tasks as shown in the attached list of crimes (1) such as “development of a high-powered high-powered energy storage device for smart cards” with the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology Evaluation and Planning, etc. affiliated with the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (former Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy), and kept the government contributions of KRW 11,168,498,000 from the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology Evaluation and Planning, etc. as the technology development project

Defendant 3, 4, and 6 had been well aware that the government contributions made up and managed a separate account separate from funds for other purposes, including the “Guidelines for Industrial Technology Development and Operation,” “Guidelines for Technology Development Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises,” “Guidelines for Industrial Technology Development and Operation,” “Information and Communications Research Management Regulations,” and “Agreement on Technology Development,” and they are used for each item prescribed in the Technology Development Convention and are prohibited from being used for other purposes.

Nevertheless, Defendant 3, 4, and 6 had the mind to embezzled government contributions by receiving false tax invoices or infusing transaction proceeds.

On February 28, 2006, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 entered into an electronic parts research institute development project with Nonindicted Co. 1, “GSM and Doro mobile phone 3V-type off cells” and instructed Nonindicted Co. 1 to receive a total of KRW 1,00,000 from Nonindicted Co. 7 bank accounts (Account No. 1 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of the former Parts Research Institute to keep in the course of business after receiving a transfer of KRW 1,00,000 in total from Nonindicted Co. 7 bank accounts (Account No. 1 omitted), and to embezzlement government contributions upon receiving a false tax invoice from Nonindicted Co. 5 operated by Defendant 6 by Nonindicted Co. 8, the head of the application technology team of Nonindicted Co. 1.

Accordingly, Nonindicted 8 asked Defendant 6 to issue a tax invoice as if the non-indicted 5 Company supplied the non-indicted 1 Company with the total amount of KRW 10,582,066, and Defendant 6 issued a tax invoice equivalent to that amount to the non-indicted 1 Company to the non-indicted 6 Company and transferred the amount of KRW 10,582,066 from the above non-indicted 7 bank account to the non-indicted 9 bank account (Account Number 2 omitted) in the name of the non-indicted 5 Company on the same day, and then charged Defendant 3, etc. with the remaining amount after deducting value-added tax and the fee.

From December 4, 2003 to November 28, 2008 (Defendant 4 from January 10, 2006 to November 2008), the Defendants transferred total amount of KRW 1,328,29,829 to Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 6 companies from the government’s task account conducted by Nonindicted Co. 1 to August 28, 2008 in the above manner, and returned total amount of KRW 768,106,869 (Defendant 4, Defendant 519,630,259 won), Defendant 3 and 4 obtained from January 16, 2006 to August 3, 2007, not from the government’s task account conducted by Nonindicted Co. 1, and returned total amount of KRW 1,328,780,788,780,00 won, excluding that of actual transactions with such companies (Defendant 560,186,960 won).

Accordingly, Defendant 3, 4, and 6 conspired with each other and embezzled total amount of KRW 876,47,149 (the total amount of KRW 628,00,539 and the Defendant total amount of KRW 768,106,869) at the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 from around December 4, 2003 (the Defendant 4 from around January 10, 2006 to November 28, 2008).

2. Defendants 3 and 4 co-principals

On September 4, 2006, Defendant 3 and 4 ordered Nonindicted Co. 1 to raise a certain amount of funds in a way that purchased the equipment from Nonindicted Co. 10 Co. 10 (representative director), the partner company of Nonindicted Co. 1, to embezzled funds owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, while purchasing the equipment from Nonindicted Co. 10 (representative director Nonindicted 11), and to make up for Nonindicted Co. 8.

Accordingly, Non-Indicted 8 requested that the price for the “sable carbon-free comprehensive system” was paid in KRW 41,400,000,000, and Non-Indicted 11 issued a tax invoice with excessive appropriation of the cost for the facility as KRW 132,00,000.

Defendant 3 and 4 submitted a tax invoice in which Nonindicted 8 paid the facility cost as above, and remitted a total of KRW 132,00,000 to Nonindicted 12 bank accounts (Account No. 3 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Company 10 in the name of Nonindicted Company 10, but received KRW 90,620,592, excluding the actual facility cost, to Defendant 3’s account in the name of Nonindicted Company 7 bank accounts in the name of Nonindicted Company 13. From that time until November 23, 2007, Defendant 3 and 4 received KRW 90,620,592, excluding the actual facility cost from Defendant 3’s wife, and arbitrarily used it by receiving KRW 128,680,517 in total nine times from 4 cooperation companies, including Nonindicted Company 10, and others.

As a result, Defendant 3 and 4 embezzled KRW 128,680,517 owned by Nonindicted Company 1 from September 4, 2006 to November 23, 2007.

3. Defendant 1

On September 24, 2005, Defendant 1 concluded a business contract with the Electronic Parts Research Institute for the “GSM and ice 3V-type off-type mobile phone development” with Defendant 1, who received KRW 1,000,000 from the Electronic Parts Research Institute for the transfer of KRW 1,00,000 from the Government contributions from Nonindicted Co. 1’s Nonindicted Co. 7 bank account (Account No. 1 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1 in an excessive manner by requesting the cooperation of Nonindicted Co. 1, a partner of Nonindicted Co. 1, to acquire government contributions by means of overappropriating the supply value.

Defendant 1, around September 23, 2005, within the research institute for Nonindicted Co. 1, 2005, Defendant 1 applied for the payment of government contributions as if the purchase price for the goods purchased from Nonindicted Co. 14 operated by Nonindicted Co. 15 is equivalent to the total amount of KRW 11,060,000, but the total amount of KRW 15,950,000, was purchased from Nonindicted Co. 15, and Defendant 3 received a tax invoice from Nonindicted Co. 15, and applied for the payment of the government contributions, as if he purchased the goods worth KRW 15,950,000 from

Defendant 1 had Defendant 3 pay KRW 15,950,00 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 15 to the account (Account Number 4 omitted) in the same day, at the same place, and around September 24, 2005, Defendant 1 received KRW 4,890,000 from Nonindicted Co. 15 to the 16 bank account (Account Number 5 omitted) in the name of Defendant 15 and received KRW 24 times in total from Nonindicted Co. 14 and from February 21, 2008 as indicated in the separate crime list (5).

4. Defendant 5

Defendant 5: (a) around February 27, 2006, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2006, entered into a business agreement with the Industrial Technology Evaluation Institute and Technology Evaluation Institute to develop the “exploitive substance and climate change for the superscopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, and received a total of KRW 5,781,00,000 from Nonindicted Co. 17 bank accounts (Account 6 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1

Defendant 5, around September 23, 2005, within the research institute for Nonindicted Co. 1, 2005, filed an application for payment of the amount of KRW 1,980,00 from Nonindicted Co. 18 to Defendant 3, who received a tax invoice as if the value of supply was the 580,000 won in purchasing the AL case from Nonindicted Co. 18 (representative Non-Indicted 20) operated by Nonindicted Co. 19 (representative Non-Indicted 20).

Defendant 5 had Defendant 3 pay KRW 1,980,00 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 to the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 20, at the same day, at the same place, and at the same time, Defendant 5 received KRW 1,400,000, the difference from Nonindicted Company 19 to the account in the name of Defendant 5. From around that time to December 5, 2008, Defendant 5 acquired KRW 80,395,000 in total of government contributions from six companies, including Nonindicted Company 18 and Nonindicted Company 14, in the same manner as above, from six companies, including Nonindicted Company 14, to December 5, 2008.

[208Gohap1298: Defendant 1, 2]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The testimony of Nonindicted 21, 22, 23, Defendant 3, 4, and Nonindicted 24

1. The statement of the witness Nonindicted 8 in the fourth trial record

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about the defendant 1 and 2 in each protocol of examination of suspect suspect;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement against Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 8 (including each accompanying document)

1. Each investigation report (including each accompanying document), each certified transcript of corporate register, shareholders’ status, each patent application content, CD, each CD, each output, each written pledge, a transaction agreement concluded between Nonindicted Co. 1 and 10, a business plan, a document, etc. submitted by a NAV, each analysis report, EDC related parts drawings, etc. confiscated by Defendant 1, and a list of records of seizure and seizure;

[209Gohap32: Defendant 3, 4, 5, 1, 6]

<3> Defendant 3, 4, 6>

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 3 and 6;

1. The defendant 4's partial statement

1. Each testimony of Nonindicted 21 and 8 by the witness

1. Some statements made by each prosecutor about Defendant 4 concerning suspect interrogation protocol;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 3, 6, and non-indicted 8 (including the substitute part)

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 15, 25, 11, 19, 26, and 27

1. Each statement of Defendant 4, Nonindicted 28, and 29

1. Each investigation report (including each accompanying document), the current status of progress with the Government of Nonindicted Co. 1, the daily table, the budget status of the State-owned funds, the statement of use of the State-owned funds, the business registration certificate, estimates, written estimates, agreement of transaction, facility purchase statement, customer inquiry statement, Defendant 6 transaction account statement, receipts, loan application contract, sales tax invoice, transaction statement, transaction statement, each tax invoice, tax invoice, each transaction statement, each passbook transaction statement, copy of each passbook, deposit transaction record certificate, deposit transaction record certificate, the deposit transaction document, the document of delivery of funds for Nonindicted Co. 1, the document of delivery of funds for the employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, the list of funds for the State-owned funds, the statement of use of the State-owned funds, the written list

Defendant 1>

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 15

1. The statement of Nonindicted 26

1. Investigation report (verification of the amount of rebates received) and list of the progress status of the government tasks with Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1, the budget status of the State’s book funds, business registration certificate, estimates, a statement of delivery of funds for employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, a statement of customer inquiry, and details of passbook transactions with Defendant 1, etc.

Defendant 5>

1. Defendant 5’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 15, 19, and 26

1. The current status of the progress of the government tasks of Nonindicted Co. 1, the current status of the government budget for the State, the account details of Defendant 5, the business registration certificate, estimates, a statement of delivery of funds for the employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, each tax invoice, each of Defendant 5, and the statement of inquiry of customers

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1

Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (including occupational breach of trust, inclusive) / [Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the acquisition and use of trade secrets), Articles 18-2 and 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the attempted use of trade secrets), and each of them] / Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2

Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (with respect to occupational breach of trust, inclusive) and Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the divulgence of trade secrets, inclusive)

C. Defendant 3, 4

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (including the embezzlement and embezzlement of government contributions), Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of each Criminal Act (including the embezzlement and embezzlement of funds of non-indicted 1 corporation);

D. Defendant 6

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement and inclusive)

E. Defendant 5

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (General Provisions)

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant 2);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on the Crimes of Occupational Breach of Trust which are More severe than that of punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1, 2, and 5: Selection of imprisonment with prison labor

B. Defendant 3 and 4: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor for occupational embezzlement

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Occupational Breach of Trust prescribed in the forepart of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Punishment)

B. Defendant 3, 4

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with heavy punishment]

1. Discretionary mitigation (defendants 3, 4, 6);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of each Criminal Code (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55(1)3)

1. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention (defendants 1, 3, 4, 5);

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances required for sentencing shall be taken into account):

1. Order to provide community service (Defendant 1);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation (Defendant 1, 2);

Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Code

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments

[208Gohap1298: Defendant 1, 2]

1. Summary of the assertion

The information of this case is not trade secret, and there was no purpose to obtain unjust profit or to inflict loss on the company from Defendant 1 and 2.

2. Legal doctrine

A. Criteria for determining trade secrets

"Trade secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act means the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known publicly, has independent economic value, and are maintained as confidential by considerable effort.

In this context, “not known to the public” refers to information that is not known to many unspecified persons, such as the publication, etc. because it is not known to the public. Thus, even if the holder manages the information as a secret, it cannot be deemed a trade secret if it is generally known that the contents of the information are already known (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004, etc.). However, it is difficult to conclude that the contents of a patent application of a foreign country include the concept of design in the patent application of another company, the physical nature, methods, and cautions of samples used in the other company’s products or testing, etc., or the contents of the information are produced by a foreign company as well as by a foreign company, and the contents of the information are not disclosed to the public (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004, etc.).

Then, "The holder of the information has an independent economic value" means that the holder of the information can benefit from competition against competitors through the use of the information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information. If the information satisfies all the above requirements, the above information does not reach the completed stage to the extent that it can be used for business activities immediately, or does not have any help to a third party, or if there is only a prototype, it does not interfere with deeming the information as a trade secret (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do623, Feb. 15, 2008).

Finally, "Maintenance of secret by considerable effort" means a situation in which it is recognizable that information is maintained and managed objectively as secret, such as making or notifying a person who can access the information, limiting access to the information, or imposing a duty to keep secret on the person who access the information, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3435 Decided July 10, 2008).

B. Criteria for determining purposes

A crime of violation of Article 18(1) and (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act is a crime committed with intent other than intentional purpose as an element for establishing a crime. The purpose of the crime is to “the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing loss to the company.” The purpose of the crime is to be dolusent perception even if it is not a positive or conclusive perception. Whether there was such purpose should be determined reasonably in light of social norms by taking into account various circumstances, such as the defendant’s occupation, experience, motive and circumstance of the act, method and method of the act, and relation between the company holding a trade secret and the third party who acquired the trade secret (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5080, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.)

3. Determination

According to the above evidence, the following circumstances can be acknowledged. Considering these circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable to see the instant information as trade secret, and also, it is reasonable to see that Defendant 1 and 2 had the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or to inflict losses on the company. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2 and their defense counsel’s arguments are not accepted.

(a) Trade secrets;

i.e., non-public nature and independent economic value;

Considering the following circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable to view that the instant information is not known publicly and has independent economic value.

The ○○ Nonindicted Co. 1 invested expenses of at least ten billion won in the development and mass production of ESC technology for a period of five years or more, and success in the development and mass production of ESC technology thereafter, as a result of continuing efforts for the development and mass production of products, the current market share is at least one market share in the domestic ESC product market. As such, ESC products are the main type of business of Nonindicted Co. 1. As such, it seems that Nonindicted Co. 1 did not make it known to many and unspecified persons of core ESC-related information, etc. in the growth of the company.

In fact, Nonindicted Co. 1 demanded “a pledge” from all new members including Defendant 1 and 2 to the effect that “The company’s trade secrets shall not be used or leaked to a third party or competition company without permission of the company, even after his/her retirement,” and Defendant 1 retired from the company would not directly use or divulge the company’s trade secrets to a third party or domestic or foreign competition company after his/her retirement. 2. Upon his/her retirement, Nonindicted Co. 1 consented to the censorship of the contents and usage of records, editing, deletion, etc. of the company’s trade secrets stored in his/her e-mail, company’s personal computer, and the company’s personal computer, and without permission of the company, it would not leak the company’s property, such as goods, documents, photographs, books, files, etc., to the effect that “At the time of retirement, etc., it would be returned to the company,” and even after his/her retirement from the company, it would not be subject to any disclosure or disclosure of the company’s confidential information from the company, 10.

○○ Moreover, the instant information includes optimal information and information in line with the circumstances of Nonindicted Co. 1’s companies by investing a considerable amount of time, effort, and expenses, and through multiple mistakes of implementation, and information related to the business strategies of Nonindicted Co. 1. Therefore, it is difficult to regard it as information publicly known due to its nature. In addition, where a subsequent issuer seeking to produce the same product as that of Nonindicted Co. 1 companies acquires such information, it is possible to develop a product of the same level as that of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company by investing the minimum time and expenses, and to establish a business strategy that can give priority to the competition with Nonindicted Co. 1 Company.

On the other hand, Defendant 1, who was in charge of EDC research and development at Nonindicted Co. 1, etc. for a considerable period of time, has been recognized as having a considerable expertise in the field of EDLC. However, Defendant 1, in the process of withdrawing Nonindicted Co. 1 and establishing Nonindicted Co. 3, a competitor of Nonindicted Co. 1, was acquired by means of storing the instant information directly to the e-mail or receiving them through e-mail from Defendant 2, while hiding the fact of the establishment of a competitor company and the acquisition of information, etc. to the executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, in the process of establishing Nonindicted Co. 3, a competitor of Nonindicted Co. 1, a competitor of Nonindicted Co. 1.

In fact, the business plan of Nonindicted Co. 3 stated the purport of “necessary for the development period due to securing the verified development result,” etc.

On the other hand, EDLC-related technologies were selected from the Ministry of Knowledge Economy as one of the next generation growth engine technologies, and Nonindicted Co. 1 was selected as a technology developer for government tasks with the recognition of its technological capabilities and received government contributions.

i. Maintenance and Management of Trade Secrets

A small and medium enterprise equivalent to Nonindicted Co. 1 is practically impossible to fully maintain and manage trade secrets at the same level as large enterprises due to the limit of financial capacity. Against such backdrop, if a request is made for the maintenance and management of confidential information equivalent to large enterprises, small and medium enterprises would be difficult to obtain protection of trade secrets. Therefore, even if there are some deficiencies in the maintenance and management of confidential information, in cases where it is recognized that a small and medium enterprise has not neglected to endeavor to maintain and manage trade secrets in light of the size of enterprises and financial capacity, etc. on the premise that all other requirements are met, it may be recognized as trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted Co. 1 was not negligent in making

As examined below, the non-indicted 1 corporation gradually strengthens the management of trade secrets according to the growth of the company, such as gradually subdividing the regulations on the protection of trade secrets and expanding the application of the computer system.

Although the regulations on the security management of ○○ does not have been organized systematically, it is difficult to see that the provisions on the security management are strictly applied, Nonindicted Co. 1 has prepared and operated the internal security regulations from around 2003, and since January 2008, it has been further subdivided into those regulations and has prepared and operated a separate electronic security regulations.

○○ Nonindicted Co. 1 had a security officer in accordance with the above provision, and some of the documents indicated the intention of “foreign expenses” by red painting.

Although it cannot be seen that ○○ employees had provided regular security education, Nonindicted Co. 1 has emphasized the importance of security to its employees through Mara from October 2007 (see, e.g., e., 2008 high Gohap1298 evidence records).

As seen above, Nonindicted Co. 1 demanded “a written oath” from all new members, including Defendant 1 and 2, and demanded “a written oath on the confidentiality, etc. of an enterprise at the time of retirement” from Defendant 1 who retired, and managed it to prevent trade secrets from being leaked, such as demanding “a written consent on technical assets and confidentiality” from Nonindicted Co. 10, a partner company, etc.

○○ Nonindicted Co. 1 installed an access card and fingerprint recognition device to control outside persons other than employees, and attached promotional materials, prohibition of entry, and prohibition of photographing at the company’s location.

In addition, CCTV was installed at a company's location, and from January 2008, it started to operate a computer program called SPP to grasp computer access and data leakage records.

(b) Purpose, etc. to acquire unjust profits;

Considering the following circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 and 2 also had the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to Nonindicted Co. 1.

Defendant 1 had prepared for the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 3, a competitor of Nonindicted Co. 1, even before the retirement of Nonindicted Co. 1, and had almost set up Nonindicted Co. 3, at the same time, retired from Nonindicted Co. 1, and at the same time set up Nonindicted Co. 3. Nevertheless, Defendant 1, at the retirement of Defendant 1, stated that he retired from the company for personal business unrelated to Nonindicted Co. 1, and that he did not have any way to store and keep the information of the relevant Nonindicted Co. 1, such as EDC. Meanwhile, Defendant 2 was a shareholder holding 2.86% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 3 at the time of the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 3.

Although Defendant 1 was recognized as having a considerable expertise in the field of EDLC, Nonindicted Co. 3, as a new living enterprise, needs considerable time, effort, and cost of the EDC until it is produced and sold in a stable manner. However, Defendant 1 stored and sold the information of Nonindicted Co. 1, while the information of Nonindicted Co. 1, as well as sales strategies, etc., is deemed to have been useful for Nonindicted Co. 3, a new living enterprise.

The scope of data sent by Defendant 2 to Defendant 1 through e-mail is broad if it is deemed that the data sent by Defendant 2 to Defendant 1 for the purpose of simple advice, etc.

In addition, the data sent by Defendant 2 appears to be different from the information that Defendant 1 stored and possessed by Defendant 1. If so, the above data is also very useful information for Nonindicted Co. 3, a new company.

In fact, the business plan of Nonindicted Co. 3 stated the purport of “necessary development period due to securing the verified development result,” and Defendant 1 also used the drawings transmitted by Defendant 2 in the process of selecting manufacturers of closures, cases, and gas diskettes.

[209Gohap32: Defendant 3, 4, and 6]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by Defendant 3, 4, and 6;

A. Summary of the assertion

The crime of this case is established on the basis of the management agency and business task, and as such, the amount of each embezzlement does not reach KRW 500 million, so the crime of this case by Defendant 3, 4, and 6 shall be deemed as one crime, and Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes cannot be applied.

B. Determination

According to each of the above evidence, although the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology Evaluation and Planning and the Electronic Parts Research Institute (the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy) are designated as the main institution in charge of each of the projects in this case, it is judged that all of them are entrusted with duties by the Minister of Knowledge Economy (the Ministry of Knowledge Economy) and the payment of government contributions is also based on the same entrustment relationship. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the crime in this case committed by Defendant 3, 4, and 6 is established as a single occupational embezzlement, including all of them. Thus, since the total sum of the embezzlement amounts exceeds 50 million won, it is not erroneous in the application of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. Thus, Defendant 3, 4, 6, and their defense counsel

2. The portion deposited into the account of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the annexed Table No. 1 of the judgment of Defendant 4 [209Gohap32] excluding the portion deposited into the account of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the annexed Table No. 2 and the remaining portion of the annexed Table No. 13 in the annexed Table No. 3

A. Summary of the assertion

The portion of the government contributions and Nonindicted Co. 1’s embezzlement of Nonindicted Co. 3’s funds by means of making a balance in cash or borrowed account and returning the difference to cash or borrowed account was directly made by Defendant 3 through Nonindicted Co. 8, who belongs to the research institute, instead of Defendant 4. Thus, Defendant 4 did not have conspired with Defendant 3.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, the following circumstances are acknowledged. Considering these circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 4 conspireds with Defendant 3, etc. regarding each of the crimes of this case, and thus, Defendant 4 and his defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

Defendant 4, while serving as a regular manager in the management sector of Nonindicted Co. 1, has overall control over the finance of Nonindicted Co. 1, including research institute funds, and Nonindicted Co. 8 has been in charge of the management of the research institute funds under the direction of Defendant 3 and 4. As can be seen, Defendant 4, who was in charge of settlement of funds execution, did not use the research institute’s account or account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, or Defendant 4’s account or account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, or Defendant 4, who was recognized as participating in the instant crime by the same method as that of the instant crime that was committed under the same manner as that of the instant crime

○○ Nonindicted 8 made a statement to the effect that not only Defendant 3 but also Defendant 4 was involved in each of the instant crimes by giving instructions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Dahap32, Apr. 32, 2009; 2009DaMa320, Apr. 1, 200; 200DaMa1060, Apr. 2, 200). However, Nonindicted 8 reversed his statement in the court after the reversal, but Defendant 3 also made a statement to the effect that Defendant 4 was involved in the instant partial crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1577, Apr. 32, 200), Defendant 6 also made a statement to the effect that Defendant 4 was involved in the instant crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1086, Mar. 32, 2086).

○ Meanwhile, Defendant 4 was also involved in certain crimes of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Dahap320, 2174, Apr. 2, 2009).

1. Defendant 1, 2

Defendant 1 and 2- [208 Gohap1298] The crime committed by the Defendants 1 and 2- [208 Gohap1298] was committed by Nonindicted Co. 1 as researchers of Nonindicted Co. 1 for a considerable period of time, and despite its well-known knowledge that researchers of Nonindicted Co. 1 made efforts to develop and develop the trade secret of this case, the Defendants leaked, acquired, or used the trade secret of this case without compensation, and the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, and the relationship between the Defendants and the non-indicted Co. 1, and even if there is no means to prove the market exchange price of the trade secret of this case, the amount of profit from the crime of occupational breach of trust cannot be calculated due to the lack of methods to prove the trade secret of this case, but if the competitors were exposed to divulgence of the trade secret of this case and utilize it, the damage of the non-indicted Co. 1, in light of the value of the trade secret in the field of technological development and EDC, and infringement of the trade secret of Korea without compensation.

In addition, all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the age and character and conduct of the Defendants, shall also be considered comprehensively. In particular, considering the sentencing factors of each Defendant as follows, the sentence against Defendant 1 and 2 shall be determined.

A. Defendant 1

Defendant 1 not only acquired and used the trade secrets of Nonindicted Co. 1 in order to produce the same kind of product after establishing a competitor of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the lead after retirement, but also caused the waste of the national budget by deceiving the government contributions provided to Nonindicted Co. 1 for the purpose of promoting the development of industrial technology, damaged the purpose of the government contributions support, and only 23 million won by defraudation.

However, Defendant 1 is an expert in the field of ESC, and if it invests a certain amount of time and cost, it would have been able to produce and sell a certain level of ESC products without dependent on the trade secret of this case, it would have been considered that Nonindicted Co. 3 did not actually produce and sell the product by utilizing the trade secret of this case, deposited the amount equivalent to the money obtained by fraud, and has no record of punishment for crimes.

B. Defendant 2

Defendant 2 participated in the competition company established by Defendant 1 as a shareholder, and then divulged the trade secrets of Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 1.

However, considering the fact that Defendant 1’s proposal appears to have caused the crime of this case and that there is no record of punishment for the crime, etc.

2. Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6

Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6 embezzled and acquired government contributions provided to non-indicted 1 corporation for the purpose of industrial technology development by using tax invoices, etc. which are excessively appropriated for the purpose of industrial technology development without using them in line with the purpose. In light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, the crime is not good in light of the nature of the crime, thereby causing damage to the purpose of the provision of government contributions and waste of the national budget. There is a need for punishment corresponding thereto.

In addition, all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6’s age and character and conduct, shall be considered comprehensively. In particular, considering the sentencing factors by Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6, the punishment for Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall be

A. Defendant 3

Defendant 3 not only embezzled government contributions as above, but also embezzled Nonindicted Co. 1’s funds, and played a leading role in each crime, and the sum of embezzled amounts is very large of KRW 1 billion, but also deemed that considerable part of the embezzled amount is used for personal benefit.

However, in consideration of the fact that the amount of embezzlement has been deposited or returned, some of the embezzlement of government contributions has been used for the operation of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and there has been no record of punishment for the same crime.

B. Defendant 4

Defendant 4 not only embezzled government contributions as above, but also embezzled Nonindicted Co. 1’s funds, and Defendant 4’s participation and embezzled amount is very large of KRW 700 million.

However, considering the fact that Defendant 3 took part in the crime of this case according to Defendant 3’s instruction, Defendant 3 deposited or returned the amount equivalent to the embezzlement amount, Defendant 3 did not have any profit gained in the course of the crime of this case and there was no record of punishment for the crime.

C. Defendant 5

Although the government contributions obtained by deceit are not a few million won, it shall be taken into account that the amount of the money obtained by deceit has been deposited and that there is no record of punishment for the crime.

D. Defendant 6

The sum of embezzlements is very large of KRW 700 million by taking part in the method of issuing a tax invoice excessively appropriated by Defendant 6.

However, considering the fact that Defendant 3 participated in the instant crime upon Defendant 3’s request, the fact that Defendant 3 deposited or returned the amount equivalent to the embezzlement amount, the profit gained in the process of the instant crime is not much much, and there is no record of punishment for the instant crime.

[Attachment]

Judges Man-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The indictment contains 23,155,00 won, but it is apparent that the sum of the damages stated in the attached Table (5) in the attached Table (5) is 23,65,000 won, so the above amount shall be deemed to be a clerical error.