beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.
Reasons
1. The scope of the trial (Defendant A) on the charge of occupational breach of trust against the Defendant among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty as to the charge of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (i.e., divulgence of trade secrets), and the violation of the Copyright Act. As examined below, the Defendant appealed on the guilty part, and the Prosecutor appealed only against the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (i.e., divulgence of trade secrets) among the convicted part and the acquitted part (i., leakage of trade secrets). As such, the remainder of the acquittal part, which the Prosecutor did not appeal, was separated and finally
Therefore, in the trial of the party, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is to be judged only on the remainder except for the violation of copyright law.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts (the point of occupational breach of trust) (the second re-documents in the judgment of the court below) are minutes or design drawings prepared by the victim company or AK (State) at the request of the victim company C (hereinafter “victim Company”) at the time when the Defendant works for the victim company C (hereinafter “victim Company”), and the minutes or design drawings prepared by the victim company or AK (State), and there was no intention to use them.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding [the Defendants’ violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Business Secret Protection Act (Leakage of Business Secrets)]: (a) each design drawing of the first time table of crime list 1 (hereinafter “the design drawing of this case”) as indicated in the judgment below; (b) materials which only employees of the victim company and their transaction companies could have been limited to perusal and reproduction; (c) the victim company posted considerable time and expenses to complete the design of the victim company; and (d) the Defendant used the design drawing of the victim company.