Facts
The appellant [X.] was the managing director and owner of the company [C.] . The co-defendant [B.] was employed as a chemist and head of "Laboratory and Production" at the respondent 2, the company [A. AG] , from 2004 to 2008. [B.] was obligated to maintain confidentiality about all manufacturing and business secrets of [A. AG] , even after the termination of his employment. During the period from approximately October 2006 to 2007, [X.] repeatedly and insistently asked [B.] whether he could provide the company [C.] with information about details of chemical formulas and recipes for products of [A. AG] . [B.] then orally and in writing transmitted to [X.] details of chemical formulas and recipes for individual products of [A. AG] that were not generally known and accessible only to a limited group of people. [X.] subsequently used this information to gain a market advantage for the products of his company [C.] . The High Court of the Canton of Bern convicted [X.] of violation of manufacturing or business secrets, committed through exploitation of a breach of trust, as well as of infringement of the Federal Act against Unfair Competition through inducement to breach of secrecy, to a suspended fine of 120 daily rates of 80 francs each, with a probation period of two years.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the conviction of [X.] . The indictment meets the legal requirements. It describes as briefly but precisely as possible the acts imputed to the accused person, with a description of the place, date, time, nature and consequences of the commission of the offence, as well as the criminal offences that the public prosecutor's office considers to have been fulfilled. Even if the amount of the offence and the intent are not expressly mentioned, this does not matter, as these circumstances are not required for the criminal offences charged. The criminal complaint of respondent 2 was not limited to a specific criminal…