A. The lower court found Defendants (1) to be guilty of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (including leakage of trade secrets) against the Defendants in the facts charged was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as seen below.

(A) Each file of the drawings (hereinafter “the file of this case”) written in the judgment below does not constitute a trade secret because it has no secrecy management.

(B) The Defendants had no “the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing losses to the company” as they lawfully acquired and used the file of the instant drawings for the performance of their services.

(2) The sentence against Defendant B (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether the file of the drawing of this case constitutes trade secrets (1) The term "business secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act means the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not publicly known and have independent economic value.

In this context, the phrase “where information is kept confidential by considerable effort” means a state recognizable that information is maintained and managed as confidential objectively, such as marking or notifying that information is confidential, restricting access to the information, or imposing a duty of confidentiality on a person who has access to the information, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2008.7. 10. 208).