A. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as seen below.

① The files attached to the judgment of the court below (excluding files No. 4 once the judgment of innocence was rendered; hereinafter “instant data”) that the Defendants leaked are not trade secrets or business assets which are the objects of the crime of breach of trust.

② In particular, the files No. 6 file No. 1 in the annexed list of crimes in the lower judgment (hereinafter “the files of this case No. 6”) are carried out after Defendant B retired from the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) on October 31, 2009, and such act may constitute infringement of trade secrets, theft, etc., and does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust requiring the existence of a fiduciary relationship.

③ Defendants did not have the intent of breach of trust.

In other words, each file mentioned in the attached list Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 of the judgment of the court below is a material that Defendant A prepared to use Nowon-gu in the house or outside at the time when Defendant A works in the damaged company, or received from Samsung Electronic. When the above Defendant retires the damaged company, he/she had left the above file immediately, but was discovered and deleted immediately thereafter, and each file mentioned in the attached list Nos. 7 to 10 was kept in the process of development in the damaged company, and it was merely a fact that Defendant B was kept in the process of development in the damaged company.

B. Even if the court below found the Defendants guilty of unfair sentencing, each of the punishments (two years of suspended sentence in October) that the court below sentenced on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, 1. The employee of the company that judged the grounds for appeal discloses trade secrets to the competitor or uses them for his own interest.