All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B (1) The files Nos. 4, 5, and 6 of the crime sight table Nos. 4, 5, and 6 are difficult to be considered as business assets, and the transaction partner who was introduced by Defendant B in the middle is the first victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”).

The lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of suspended sentence per year) against the Defendant is too unreasonable, solely on the ground that it was acting as an intermediary for the victim company to sell the same kind of product as the victim company’s product.

B. The files that the Defendants leaked by the prosecutor (the fact-finding) fall under the victim’s trade secret, and even if not, each file Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the files that the Defendants leaked falls under the major business assets, as shown in the No. 4, 5, and 6 of the separate crime list among the files that the Defendants leaked, and Defendant A actively included in the Defendant B’s breach of trust.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. Decision 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant B shall not divulge trade secrets to the outside according to a written oath, etc. as the head of the business division of the victim company, and even if Defendant A had a duty not to sell the products of other companies selling the same kind of product with the victim company, Defendant A would have been paid 10% of the sales proceeds after selling the automatic packaging machine. Defendant B would be paid 10% of the sales proceeds from his e-mail (F) at a place where it is impossible to know because he violated