[1] The meaning of "when property damage is inflicted on property" in the crime of breach of trust and the standard for determining whether property damage has been inflicted

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established on the ground that the above act alone did not cause property damage to the Gap company, or that the risk of property damage was not caused, in case where the defendant, an employee of Gap corporation, filed a patent application for the employee invention such as the representative director Eul, and filed a patent application with his own director Eul and entered the defendant's name in

[1] When property damage is inflicted on the crime of breach of trust includes not only a case of causing a real loss but also a case of causing a risk of actual damage to property. Determination of the existence of property damage shall be understood from an economic point of view, not from a legal judgment in relation to the property status of the principal. Even if a legal judgment does not recognize any validity of the act of breach of trust, where the act of breach of trust actually causes a real loss to the principal or causes a risk of actual damage to property, it shall be deemed that the act of breach of trust causes a property damage. However, if such risk of damage is not caused, it shall not be established.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in case where the defendant, an employee of Gap corporation, etc., filed a patent application for the "integrated separate collection system" which claimed by the representative director Eul et al. for his duties and entered the defendant's name in addition to the inventor column in addition to the inventor column, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act does not immediately affect Gap corporation's patent right or its related legal relationship, since the patent application is substantially determined regardless of the inventor column, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act alone affected Gap corporation's patent right itself or its related legal relationship, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the damage was caused to Gap corporation or the risk of property damage was

[1] Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Code / [2] Articles 355 (2) and 356 of the Criminal Code, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do771 Decided April 9, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 857), Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4120 Decided August 20, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14585 Decided March 25, 2010

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011No302 decided July 22, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of breach of trust, property damage includes not only a case where a real damage is inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been caused. Determination of the existence of property damage shall not be based on legal judgment in relation to the property condition of the principal, but also from an economic point of view. Even where a legal judgment does not recognize any effect of the act of breach of trust, where the act of breach of trust has inflicted a real damage on the principal or has caused a risk of actual damage to the property, it shall be deemed that the act of breach of trust has inflicted a property damage, but where the risk of such damage has not been caused, the act of breach of trust shall not be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14585, Mar. 25, 2010).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the evidence duly admitted and found it as follows. Since the issue of whether the inventor is an inventor is actually determined regardless of the inventor column in the patent application, the defendant's act of having the victim non-indicted 2, the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter "victim company") enter the defendant's name in the inventor column at his discretion at the time of filing the patent application for "an integrated recycling and collection system" which is claimed by the victim non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter "victim company") in relation to his duties and entered the defendant's name in the inventor column as a joint inventor, the defendant's act does not immediately affect the victim's patent right itself or related legal relationship. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the victim company's property damage was caused or the risk of property damage was caused, and there is no other evidence to

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that there were unlawful acts of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience, or of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)