All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion among the judgment of the court below No. 1 and No. 2), or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

① As to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets, etc.), among the judgment of the court of first instance, comprehensively taking account of the lawful evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including K and J statements, the list of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the data of this case”) that the defendants acquired and used constitutes “trade secret” under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act that satisfies all the requirements for non-public nature, economic usefulness, and confidentiality.

② As to the occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (b) Defendant B’s lawful evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the fact that the promotion books distributed by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) to customers are practically the same as that of the victim company; and (c) Defendant B stated to the effect that Defendant B made a confession in the prosecutor’s office; (b)

(3) On the second instance judgment, the injured company has obtained at least a non-exclusive license for the patent application filed by the Defendant A in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Invention Promotion Act, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the injured company may fully recognize that Defendant A violated the duty to inform the injured company of the completion of the employee invention and to cooperate with the injured company.

B. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, and the above Defendant’s appeal against the lower judgment on March 14, 2012, and thereafter filed an appeal against the lower court. < Amended by Act No. 11448, Apr. 4, 2012>