In this regard, the part of the lower judgment’s dismissal was separately determined as it is, since only the prosecutor appealeds the part of the lower judgment regarding the acquittal, and the prosecutor and the Defendant did not appeal the part concerning the dismissal of the prosecution.

Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the acquittal part is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the following: (a) although the relationship between the Defendant and the victim company was changed from the employment relationship to the contract relationship; (b) however, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim and the two, the duty of confidentiality related to G, monopoly agreement, or good faith principle exists;

As such, the defendant is fully recognized as a person who administers another's business.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged as stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The defendant is in the position of "a person who administers another's business" solely on the ground that the defendant was in an employment relationship with the victim company or the victim company exclusively developed and supplied G in Korea before several years of determination.

There is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if there is a duty under the good faith principle that the defendant should not use the technical information known to him in the course of the contract without permission, it is not a simple contractual obligation.

Therefore, the judgment of innocence by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

No. 3.