beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) As to the crime of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of trade secrets, etc.), as indicated in the holding of the court below, the following documents do not have been acquired by the defendant for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the victim C.
① A photograph file as indicated in (1) No. 40 through 45 (hereinafter “the instant photograph file”): around February 16, 2014, the Defendant made a business trip to a factory for the mass production of the instant photograph files related to the instant photograph files, while making a business trip at the factory, due to the lack of time to modify and output the name of the materials mistakenly entered in the ERP program, taking the Defendant’s manufacture specifications and process control marks using the Handphone camera, and then did not delete them thereafter.
② Manufacturing specifications (hereinafter “Manufacture specifications of this case”) as indicated in (i) net 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 through 15, and 35 through 39 of the sight of crimes as indicated in the original judgment (hereinafter “manufacturing specifications of this case”).
The Defendant asserted the same purport as to the specifications of the manufacture as stated in the list of crimes (1) Nos. 5 and 6 at a net time, but no separate decision is made because the aforementioned specifications are not included in the facts constituting a crime): under the ERP Program, the Defendant was not registered as a person in charge of the study of the specifications of this case, but actually the Defendant participated in the research project on the specifications of this case.
As to the crime of occupational breach of trust as stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was not subject to deletion at the time of retirement, or with the intention to collect personal work results. (2) As to the crime of occupational breach of trust as stated in the judgment of the court below, the re-data of the crime list (2) (hereinafter referred to as the "data of this case") in the judgment of the court below was kept by the defendant in order to use it for business or an opportunity to use it for business in the victim company.