A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the above sentence against Defendant A.

Defendant

A, from May 2008 to December 3, 2012, from around 11, 2012, the victim corporation Daa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Co., Ltd.") located in the block 11 block of Pyeongtaek-si Cheong-si Cheong-si Cheongdong 463-1 Yaedong Yadong 11, was in charge of the manufacture, repair, etc. of return dust robots (the robots moving glass plates from the advanced state for semiconductor production) for return use in Korea (hereinafter referred to as "victim Co., Ltd.").

Defendant

B around October 2009, the company established and operated a company G, the main business of which is the repair of semiconductors and LROMs, used as a component for semiconductors in 306 of the Gu-U.S. Si in 2009.

Defendant

C (formerly, from June 199 to May 2002, C (H) was in charge of the repair of the old official return telegrams while serving in Pacon Co., Ltd., which performed the role of the Korean agency of the Japan from June 1, 1999 to May 2002. From September 1, 2008 to October 31, 2012, C (H) performed the repair work as one of the teams accepting the advanced return telegrams from Dex, Inc., Ltd., which was located in the 82-ro half-distance from Sep. 1, 2008 to October 31, 2012.

Defendant

A signed a letter to the effect that “the victim company shall enter the victim company and observe all the regulations, and shall not divulge any technology and trade secret acquired during his/her service period to the outside.” The victim company prepared guidelines such as rules of employment, compliance with statutes, etc., and imposed a duty of confidentiality on its employees through information security education, etc., and thus, the facts charged in the major business assets acquired in the victim company during his/her service are stated as “trade secret,” and the defendant A stated that all the facts charged are recognized.

However, under the following, it was determined that the trade secret requirement was not satisfied in the case of the materials in the ruling.

However, it is judged that it constitutes a "major asset for business purposes" in the occupational breach of trust, and even if it is changed, the defendant's right of defense is exercised.