Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

, however, the defendant.

A. In light of the purport of the Act on Prevention of and Protection of Industrial Technology (hereinafter “Industrial Technology Protection Act”), Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on Prevention of and Protection of Industrial Technology, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to occupational breach of trust, and preventing divulgence of new technology protected by the said Act, it is insufficient to say that the content of the data leaked from the victim ELElectronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) is the same as that stated in the application, etc. of new technology, and that the core method or technical information of new technology should be able to be used for manufacturing products, etc.

However, data leaked by Defendant A is merely data in the form of report and presentation prepared for the purpose of using it in the national agenda, etc., and there is no core method or technical information in industrial technology.

B) The new technology leaked by Defendant A has already been registered as a patent and widely disclosed to the public, and there is no confidential nature that serves as the premise for the crime of violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act to Defendant A.) The purpose of obtaining unjust gains under Article 14 Subparag. 2 of the Industrial Technology Protection Act or causing damage to an institution possessing industrial technology is limited to the case where at least the purpose of obtaining profits or causing damage by using industrial technology (sale, use, disclosure, etc.) in accordance with its original intent. In light of the fact that Defendant A secured for the purpose of informing the damaged company of corruption related to the national responsibility of the victimized company, there was no purpose of obtaining unjust profits through industrial technology or causing damage to the victimized company. The term “discharge of industrial technology” under the Industrial Technology Protection Act does not mean the act of leaving industrial technology simply with the language and text, but it does not mean the act of leaving industrial technology outside the company.