Although the Defendants, as members of limited partnership company G (hereinafter referred to as “G”), used the aforementioned transactional information for business operations of a limited liability company I (hereinafter referred to as “I”), the Defendants committed occupational breach of trust, the lower court determined otherwise and acquitted the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) Defendant A retired from office after having worked for about one year from “G” to “G” of the victim limited partnership companies established around April 1, 1996 to around 2010; (b) Defendant A re-entered around April 1, 201 and worked as a regular director in charge of the supply customer management of alcoholic beverages until February 2012; (c) Defendant B entered the victim company on May 10, 2008 to engage in the business of operating and delivery of 30 customers from the date of April 20, 2012; (d) Defendant B entered the victim company; (e) Defendant C entered the victim company at the bottom of March 1, 2010 to take charge of Kim Dong-dong's business affairs; and (e) Defendant B entered the victim company at around 30 customers and delivery of alcoholic beverages; and (e) Defendant B entered the victim company at around 30 business day; and (e) 1/D/4 business affairs related to the above company.

Since Defendants made a commitment that they should not leak company information they acquired while employed in the victim company after becoming members of the victim company, they had a duty to withdraw and return important data such as trade secrets they acquired while in office and to not perform acts such as reproduction, storage, removal, etc. to use for other purposes.

Nevertheless, the Defendants acted in collusion with the victim company in violation of the above occupational duties.