logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.30 2015고합967
부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반(영업비밀누설등)등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the Defendants are above two years from the date of this judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On November 8, 2012, Defendant B was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 16, 2012.

[Status of the Defendants] Defendant A is a person in charge of the development of “H” products and the approval of the Korea Gas Safety Corporation, who works for the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) located in F from September 27, 2010 to September 23, 2012, as the head of the production team, while serving as the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

Defendant

B On July 24, 2012, the LPG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “I”) is a person who, as a patent holder, filed an application (L patent registration) for a patent for K's "K" with the I as a patent holder.

The injured company was established for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and exporting LPG containers on June 18, 2009, and entered into a technology transfer agreement with the Sweden "M" company holding original technology and the "H" exclusive sales agreement in Asian region. On March 7, 2011, the injured company passed the design inspection of LPG compound container containers at the Korea Gas Safety Corporation and manufactures the "N" product for the first time in the Republic of Korea.

[Detailed Criminal Facts]

1. The Defendants’ joint crime-related occupational breach of trust (hereinafter “P”) established the LPG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) on January 2006, and promoted the production of “PG compound materials container”. On May 2010, the Defendants planned to recruit investors and establish H “H” and “H”, and the facts charged of the business assets of the victimized company with Defendant A, who was in service, are called “business secrets,” but it is difficult to view the business secrets as being acquitted, and all of the “business secrets” were modified to “important business assets”.

Work process records, material costs, and Ra. against “H”.

arrow