beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed an occupational breach of trust by carrying out, without permission, the goods indicated in the bill of indictment, the main business assets of the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) out of the damaged company, which are the main business assets of the victimized company.
2. Determination
A. On July 1, 2006, from around March 31, 2008 to around March 31, 2008, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was working as the damaged factory of the Muschi Manufacturing chain in both cities, and was in charge of the work of the factory. On July 1, 2006, the Defendant prepared a written pledge that the research and research materials related to the work of the victimized company shall not be used without the permission of the victimized company as well as shall not be leaked to the third party or competitors without the permission of the victimized company.
Nevertheless, on February 2008, prior to the withdrawal of the damaged company, the Defendant: (a) taken out the damaged company’s technologies, business materials, etc.; (b) had the intent to use them at the time of employed by another company in the future; and (c) violated the occupational duties that must be observed as above; and (d) at that time, the Defendant took out the damaged company’s major business assets, such as (i) materials production process level, raw material ratio, work order, heating cooling temperature and time, and water rate, without permission, the goods indicated in the daily list of annexed crimes 1, such as (i) the business multi-level data containing data, such as (ii) the business multi-level, which are the main business assets of the victimized company; (ii) obtained economic benefits equivalent to the market exchange price of major business assets as above, and (iii) caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the victimized company.
B. The lower court’s judgment 1) on the following grounds.