2. B

A. Defendants

For the following reasons, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The instant principal register, the terms and conditions of resolution, work instruction, and the current status of business customers, etc. (hereinafter “instant principal register, etc.”) cannot be deemed as the major business assets worth protecting the victim’s company. Since the Defendants produced products with a new principal and conclusive condition regardless of them, the removal of the instant principal register, etc. from the instant principal register, etc. cannot be deemed as the occupational breach of trust. 2) Since the Defendants cannot be deemed as having a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the instant principal register, etc., the crime of occupational breach of trust cannot be established in this respect.

3) If the victim company did not keep confidential and is engaged in production, anyone could freely access the above data, and thus, the Defendants could not think that the above data was confidential. In such a situation, Defendant B’s withdrawal from the victim company and personal data were used the USB camera device that was kept together with the above data, and cannot be deemed as having committed a crime of occupational breach of trust against the Defendants.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Although it is sufficient to prove that the amount of profit gained by the Defendants from the act of breach of trust of this case is KRW 416,896,743, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the judgment below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the defendants are not entirely against the defendants, the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendants (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for October, and two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

1) If an employee of the headquarters, etc., carried out of a competitor’s major assets without permission for the purpose of disclosing a trade secret to a competitor or using it for his own interest, the act of taking out the data constitutes occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do946, Jun. 13, 2013). In addition, when an employee of the company takes out data without permission from a competitor’s or its own intent to use it for the purpose of occupational breach of trust, even if such data does not necessarily have to be disclosed to an unspecified number of persons, it shall not be ordinarily obtained unless it is disclosed to the general public, and even if it is not a trade secret, it shall be deemed that the data was not disclosed to an unspecified number of persons, and where the data was a major business asset produced by an employer with considerable time, effort, and expenses, the act of taking out the data constitutes an occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do6319, Jun. 13, 2013).

Examining the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it can be recognized that the principal book, etc. of this case constitutes a major business asset, and it is sufficient to view that the defendants' removal of this case constitutes an occupational breach of trust. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit

A) Multimond tools products produced by the victim company will be made by mixing raw material metal and industrial multimond products, and the core technology is to manufacture the multimond tools with the combination ratio of such raw material metal.

(b) If the Damond Agency receives an order from the Customer to create a construction section to be used for a specific purpose, it will develop the Damond in order to create a construction section suitable for that purpose (the strength required according to the use of the Damond construction section has changed), and the basic knowledge of which metal is already widely known to the Damond Agency, or the basic knowledge of which to a certain degree is entered alternatively, or by making a specific construction section in each company, and by adjusting its percentage in detail and adding special metal, and, in the process, the appropriate form and condition of the construction are complete.

C) A witness V at the trial court, who is engaged in the manufacture of the Dmond tool and has considerable experience in the design and development of the Dmond design, stated at the trial court that:

The time required for completing the ○○ one principal page may be 2 to 3 years long from 6 months ordinarily short.

The ○ witness developed the 3 to 4 months short from the company in which he was present and from the company in which he was operated to make the main dial, and the 1-year period from which he was employed.In the case of the witness, the sufficient experience has been accumulated, so it could have been made soon.

○ The fact that a person who has no experience in the design work produces a product within a short time without any material on the main page does not obtain any benefit from the witness's common sense.

○ It is not easy for other persons to acquire the core technology through a witness’s product. The witness company made a stude that is unable to access the computer used except those who are believed to protect the core technology, and made it possible to access the computer in an independent space.

D) The Defendants asserted that the combination ratio of raw materials and metals is understood, i.e., the component metal ratio, due to the accuracy of at least 90% of the completed products upon request by a specialized institution. However, according to the written request for appraisal and response to the Daegu Empha Convergence Center at the trial, there seems to be considerable difference in the outcome of the analysis of the combination ratio of metals based on the actual principal and the electronic microscope analysis method, and it is difficult for the Defendants to accept the said assertion as they are.

E) The form of punishment and small conditions are considerably important technologies in the production of the Section, and they fall under the Company’s own production technology, and cannot be identified in a way of analyzing the completed products.

F) At the end of October 2008, the Defendants: (a) produced the first type of Merete product at the end of the instant case; (b) sent the sample sample to the SAS E company of the United States; and (c) contacted on January 2009, that the sample sample would be capable of reaction in the market; and (d) sent the sample sample to the early of January 2009, and (e) recognized that the supply was commenced from this time. However, the time when the Defendants were produced the prototype to the victim company (Defendant A)

On July 4, 2008, Defendant B retired, and Defendant B retired on July 30, 2008, only three months and five months after the commencement of the supply to Ssa company. In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, if the Defendants, who were not in charge of the design or development of Sad, carried out the main register, etc. from the victim company and did not use the main register, etc., then the Defendants could not start the supply to Sags company within a short time.

G) In light of the above circumstances, the victim company’s principal dynasium, etc. taken out by the Defendants appears to have been a considerable time, effort and cost for the acquisition or development of the victim company, and the Defendants, by referring to the victim company’s principal dynas ledger, etc., obtained at least a benefit of saving time and cost to develop their own principal dynas, and thus, it appears that the principal dynas ledger, etc. of the victim company, etc. of this case, to the extent that they can gain competitive

2) Whether the Defendants are obliged to maintain confidentiality

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant B had consented to the rules of employment stating that "any employee of the victim company's company shall not divulge any secret which he has learned in the course of his duties, even after retirement," "any act of making a profit against the company's interest or giving any other person an unjust profit" on July 21, 2008, immediately before the withdrawal of the defendant B, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant B bears the duty not to use it for his own profit by taking out the main register, etc. of this case, etc., and therefore there is no reason for the defendants' assertion on this part (the defendant A bears the responsibility as an accomplice of the crime of breach of trust in collusion with the defendant B who bears such duty of confidentiality, so it is a crime of

3) Whether there is a crime of occupational breach of trust

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, Defendant B made a statement that, around October 207, M technology directors stored the victim’s main body register, etc. in the U.S.B joints in the U.S. room. room on the following grounds: (i) around October 2007, Defendant B made a statement that the Plaintiff stored the main body register, etc. in the U.S. room in the U.S. room for 3-4 months prior to his withdrawal (i.e., 1391 pages of investigation records); (ii) it was inconsistent with Defendant B’s statement that he stored the main body register, etc. in the U.S. room for 3-4 months prior to his withdrawal; (iii) while Defendant B made a product at the first time in the U.S. room established by the Defendant without any particular intention on the grounds for storing the main body register, etc. in the U.S. room for 3-4 months prior to his withdrawal; and (iv) it was sufficiently recognized that the Defendants made a product different from the Defendant’s business content by making use of metal mixture ratio (i.

B. Determination of the Prosecutor's argument

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, KRW 416,896,743 as stated in the charge of breach of trust in this case, not only the product at issue, but also the profits derived from the defendant's supply of the product purchased from other companies, such as Taedong-gu and Lee Jae-tech, etc., to Sypian; and even in the case of the profits that the defendants acquired from the supply of the instant main product to Sypian, such profits include the defendants' business effort, and it is difficult to view that the whole profits were obtained due to the defendants' occupational breach of trust, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendants acquired the above amount of property profits and suffered property damage equivalent to the victim company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The judgment of the court below to this purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

After the defendants establish a company that operates the same kind of business using the technology of their victim company, and then deliver products to the company that traded with the victim and make profits to the victim, the crime is not good.

However, Defendant A is the first offender, and Defendant B did not have any criminal records exceeding the same kind of criminal records or fine, and the fact that the victim company established by the Defendants traded with the third company, which was traded with the third company, appears to have contributed to a certain portion of the Defendants’ own effort, development of technology, and business capabilities, and that only the technology of the victim company taken out, does not seem to result in the transaction with the third company, etc., in favor of the Defendants.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and therefore, Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is

All these are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition (The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows: "1. Witness J, K, and L's respective legal statements" in the summary column of the evidence is a clerical error in the "1. Witness J. K and M's respective legal statements", so it is obvious that they are the clerical errors in the "1. Witness J. K and

Judges Kim Dong-han

Judges Kang Tae-ho