Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From July 2013 to October 15, 2015, the Defendant is an employee after concluding a labor contract with the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) located in Ulsan-gu and Ulsan-gu from July 2013 to October 2015.

A victimized company is an agent of a credit card subsidiary business company (hereinafter referred to as "VN business operator") and engaged in the sale and installation of card terminals, the management of franchise stores, etc., and the Defendant had a duty of care not to induce new franchise stores to enter into contracts with other competitors while attracting new franchise stores of the victimized company and maintaining and managing existing franchise stores.

Nevertheless, on October 7, 2015, the Defendant, in violation of the foregoing duties, invited E in the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government to a new franchise store, and caused F to enter into a franchise agreement with G, a competitor, thereby causing the damaged company to lose the revenue of 90 won per credit card transaction approval, thereby causing the damaged company to suffer from the total amount of property damage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Details of standard labor contracts, wages, and deposits in allowances;

1. A copy of the name cards of the person under consideration;

1. Card terminals, POS sale free of charge, maintenance and repair of POS rental, and standard service contracts (E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the terms of a relative labor contract, etc. for complainants);

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order is a contract concluded after expressing his/her intention to resign from the victimized company at the end of September 2015, and thus, it is not a breach of trust against the victimized company.

However, by October 15, 2015, the defendant also worked for the injured company for the transfer and takeover.