They say the company's business partner information was stolen... The reason for not sending the ‘suspected employee’

A man who was sent to a company under his wife's name to steal customer information he learned while working at the company for several years was acquitted. On the 16th of last month, the Ilsan West Police Station in Gyeonggi Province decided not to forward Mr. A, in his 60s, on charges of violating the law on aggravated punishment for specific economic crimes (breach of trust).

Mr. A has been in charge of general management at Company B, a company specializing in new and renewable energy, from 2022 to last year and has participated in numerous contracts. At that time, Mr. A was involved in external activities on behalf of the company and was directly involved in several contracts. Company B claimed that Mr. A made a profit by stealing customer information he learned while working to a corporation established in his spouse's name.

Mr. A denied all charges. Company B was notified in advance that the spouse's company was participating in the business, and the business details of the two companies did not overlap, so there was no problem.

The police decided not to forward Mr. A. As a result of conducting an investigation into the projects and contracts in which Mr. A participated while working for Company B, it was determined that charges such as breach of duty were not established.

The police explained, "When looking at the business structure and profit relationship of Company B comprehensively, it is difficult to say that Mr. A used Company B's key information unfairly. Rather, it appears that Mr. A received help from a company under his spouse's name to proceed with Company B's business."

Attorney Yoon Jeong-hyeon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A, said, "For a crime of breach of duty to be established, it is established when a person handling another person's affairs acts in violation of his duties for the benefit of himself or a third party and causes property damage through this."

He added, "Considering Company B's business structure, content, progress, etc., Mr. A's act of receiving fees in the name of consulting fees from related companies cannot be an act of inflicting property damage on Company B or an act of giving unfair advantage to Mr. A or a third party." He added, "Mr. A was not recognized as guilty of a crime, so he could receive a non-transportation decision."

Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)

[View full article]
They say the company's business partner information was stolen... The reason for not sending the ‘suspected employee’ (link)