beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On January 21, 2013, the Defendant entered a B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) that produces and sells marine electronic communications equipment, etc., and is in charge of proposing tenders by the director of the division of the division of the division of the headquarters of the Special Project Headquarters in the business technology headquarters as of July 31, 2014, and entered into the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on July 1, 2015 after withdrawal from July 31, 2014, and entered into the Plaintiff’s domestic business division as the head of the Busan metropolitan metropolitan building FG in the Busan metropolitan metropolitan transportation, and is in charge of domestic satellite communications equipment sales and business support.
When the defendant retires from a damaged company, he/she shall not take out major assets of the victimized company that he/she acquired while in office, and shall return or delete them while withdrawing from the company.
Nevertheless, on July 31, 2014, the defendant retired from the damaged company and carried out to the outside without returning or eliminating the charges on the basis of four file evidence documents, which are major assets of the victimized company, H, I, 'I', 'J' and 'K', which are the major assets of the victimized company.
Accordingly, the Defendant violated his occupational duties and acquired the financial benefits equivalent to the market exchange value of the above data, and caused the damage company with property damage equivalent to the same amount.
2. Determination:
A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).