A. When misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, a plan to purchase a site for reconstruction projects (hereinafter “instant plan”) does not constitute “trade secrets obtained during the process of handling affairs” under Article 7-2 of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (hereinafter “Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act”).

Even if the instant plan falls under the category of occupational secrets, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s acquisition of G land (hereinafter “instant land”) in literature-si constitutes a case where the Defendant uses occupational secrets, and it cannot be said that the Defendant acquired property benefits by using occupational secrets.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 20 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that: (a) the fact that the instant land is a land to be acquired at the door-to-door market is not disclosed to the public; and (b) the fact that the details thereof affect the implementation of the project plan or the real estate transaction market; and thus, (c) the Defendant became aware of the occupational secrets that the instant land is subject to acquisition at the door-to-door market; and (d) the Defendant became aware of the fact that payment corresponding thereto may be granted to the landowner because the instant land is subject to acquisition at the door-to-door market; and (e) insofar as the instant land was acquired in exchange with the Defendant’s land that is not subject to acquisition at the door-to-door market without notifying the landowner that it is subject to acquisition at the door-to-door market, the Defendant’

(2) (A) The “confidentials known during the course of performing duties” under the Anti-Corruption Act as to whether they constitute occupational secrets shall be protected as confidential.