º»¹® ¹Ù·Î°¡±â ÁÖ¸Þ´º·Î ¹Ù·Î°¡±â
All
TITLE Supreme Court Decision 2015Do464 Decided July 12, 2018¡¼Violation of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology; Occupational Breach of Trust¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Whether a violation of Article 36(1) of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology constitutes a purposeful offense with the element to establish crime being ¡°to use industrial technology or have industrial technology used in a foreign country¡± and whether the same holds true as to Article 14 Subparag. 2 ¡ª cited by the same Article 36 ¡ª with the element to establish crime being ¡°to obtain unjust enrichment or cause loss to an institution possessing industrial technology¡± (affirmative)

Whether the aforementioned intent can be inferred solely on the basis that an actor, who was aware of the industrial technology, either engaged in acts under each subparagraph of Article 14 of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology or transferred such industrial technology to a person abroad (negative), and standard for determining the nonexistence of direct evidence to prove that the actor possessed a specific intent as seen above

[2] Whether a corporation may be subject to punishment pursuant to Article 38 of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology for being negligent in its duty of care and management/supervision regarding the business in which the relevant offense was committed by an employee, etc. (affirmative), and standard for determining the existence or absence of a corporation¡¯s negligence on a case-by-case basis

[3] Whether a violation of Article 18(1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act constitutes a purposeful offense with the element to establish crime being ¡°to obtain unjust enrichment or cause loss to a company¡± (affirmative), and standard for determining the existence of such intent
Prev Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu2259 Decided July 12, 2018 ¡¼Denial Adjudication (Trademark)¡½
Next Supreme Court Decision 2016Da9261, 9278 Decided July 11, 2018 ¡¼Wages, Etc.; Restitution of Unjust Enrichment¡½
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100