Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months and by imprisonment for defendant B.

A. The written opinion submitted by Defendant A on September 27, 2019 is examined to the extent that the grounds for appeal are supplemented.

On the second trial date, the defense counsel organized the following parts of the argument for mistake of facts:

1) In the case of a mistake of fact-finding that the Defendant removed from the office when the Defendant left the office (the file name: the address record.xls in 2015) is the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment for a term of eight months) is too unreasonable, because the Defendant prepared for the convenience of business, not the principal assets of the victimized company. Accordingly, the act of taking out the register of address does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust.

B. Defendant B’s defense counsel’s written opinion submitted on November 11, 2019 is examined to the extent of supplement in the event of supplement in the grounds for appeal.

The defense counsel organized the following parts of the misunderstanding of facts on the third trial date:

1) misunderstanding of facts in the facts stated in the lower judgment that the Defendant’s part of paragraph (a) of Article 2 of the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment is limited to the development of the web program that is limited to the part of the development of the web program. The Defendant’s completion of the development of the web program is around November 30, 2015 or at latest around December 2015.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant used the electronic facsimile program of the victimized company by February 2, 2016, thereby misunderstanding the facts regarding the period of crime.

B) Article 2-b of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below was connected to the communications network of the victimized company in order to correct the error of the product at U’s request. At the time, the person in charge of the victimized company accepted the Defendant’s access even though having confirmed the Defendant’s access, and the Defendant’s work was an act for the benefit of the victimized company. Therefore, the Defendant’s act is an act that may expect the presumed consent of the victimized company, and thus, the illegality is excluded).