All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants, misunderstanding the facts as to the Defendants (common) 1, refer to technical data and material safety and health data of the victimized company remaining in the personal domain account of the Defendant E (hereinafter “victim”) in the course of providing information on the products to the trading company, knowledge and experience that the Defendants came to know while working in the victimized company, and information disclosed by the other company. The products of H H Co., Ltd. established and operated by the Defendants (hereinafter “H”) and the products of the victimized company are different from the combined ratio and the manufacturing method. Thus, it is difficult to view the Defendants as identical products.

Therefore, the Defendants, on the basis of the data on the sales products and the unit price of supply by each customer of the victimized company (hereinafter “transaction-related data”), production instruction, manufacturing process, technical data, material safety and health data, and other important data that can be recognized as the major business assets of the victimized company without permission, have produced the same products as the products of the victimized company.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the occupational breach of trust is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor 1) The Defendants were released without permission by the Defendants, and the materials of the victimized company constituted “business secrets” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the disclosure of business secrets) among the facts charged on the ground that the materials taken out do not constitute business secrets. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unfair.