The guilty part of the defendant A and the crime of occupational breach of trust due to the leakage of a camera X model.

1. Prosecutor 1) The data leaked by Defendant A, B, and C were managed as confidential business assets with independent economic value.

However, the court below held that some of the data were not protected as business secrets or does not constitute a major business asset.

The decision was determined.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the 8 months of imprisonment for each of Defendant A, B, and C, and the 2 years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A1 guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the point of destruction of property) is unreasonable.

① Since the Defendant paid a knife to resolve the heat problem inside the instant black box, there is no intention of damage.

② Since the instant black boxes had a defect in their functions and have a possibility of explosion, they cannot be the object of the crime of destruction because they have no property value or utility itself.

③ Even if the Defendant’s intent to commit a crime of damage is recognized, the object of the crime of damage shall be limited to the knife, not to the black box, but to the knife in which the knife was used. The knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife,

3. Defendant B and C1 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles (the point of occupational breach of trust) and ① The Defendants had, even after their withdrawal, each of the data in attached Table 2 of the judgment below and each of the data in attached Table 4 of the crime circulation table 4 of the judgment below and each of the data in attached Table 4 of the judgment below, there was no intention of occupational breach of trust.

2. The above data shall not constitute a major business asset.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

Ⅱ Regarding the prosecutor, Defendant B, and C’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.