산업기술의유출방지및보호에관한법률위반등
[Defendant B] Of the judgment of the court below, the number 1 and 2 of the list of crimes (2) attached to the court below as to Defendant B.
1. The scope of the trial of this court was prosecuted against Defendant A on the violation of the Act on the Prevention and Protection of Outflow of Industrial Technology, the violation of the Act on the Prevention of Divulgence of Industrial Technology, and the violation of trust and occupational breach of trust, and applied for changes in the indictment on February 13, 2018. This includes deletion of Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust.
Therefore, on March 8, 2018, the lower court deemed that the purport of the amendment of indictment with respect to Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust as mentioned above was the meaning of revocation of public prosecution, and rendered a decision to dismiss the prosecution on this part on the fourteenth public trial date of the lower court on March 8, 2018, and the prosecutor did not appeal this, thereby making it final and conclusive that Defendant A’s occupational
Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is the remainder except for the defendant A's occupational breach of trust.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) 2, C, and D’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) were not properly guaranteed the right to participate in the process of the investigation of the instant case by the investigative agency’s sealing - opening - unfolding - searching and printing of digital evidence seized by the investigative agency, and thus, the evidence secured thereby is inadmissible as evidence illegally collected.
(Evidence No. 42, 44-63, 76, 77, 78, 196, 238, 240, 242 Defendant B, C, and D’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s written opinion submitted at the lower court on August 16, 2016 (not more than 396 pages of the trial record). The above defense counsel did not assert the following grounds: (a) evidence No. 42, 79-84, 90, 97, 97, 109-109-156, 162-167, 177, 178, 202, 203, 203, 233, 234, 262-264, 290, and 402, as evidence; (b) the defense counsel did not assert that the new technology was acquired from the lower court’s own theory and use (including information leakage).