Defendant

All appeals filed by A, C, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) No. 1, 2, 6 No. 1, 2, and 6 each year of the list of offenses listed in the judgment of Defendant A and C1 (hereinafter “the list of offenses”).

7. Each of the materials mentioned above does not constitute “business secrets” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) because it is not possible to recognize non-public nature, efforts to maintain confidentiality, independent economic value, and thus, it does not constitute “business secrets” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. Although the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or inflicting losses on the Defendant A and C is not recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act due to the outflow of business secrets to the said Defendants.

B. Prosecutor 1) Of the judgment of the first instance court, the crime committed against Defendant A and C with a mistake of the facts not guilty as to Defendant A and C, No. 3,4,00 per annum;

5. Each of the data mentioned is not disclosed information, but is independent economic value in light of its usefulness, and is maintained as confidential by considerable effort, and thus constitutes a "business secret" under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Therefore, under the premise that the above materials do not constitute trade secrets, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the crime of violating the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition due to the divulgence of trade secrets to the above Defendants and the crime of breach of trust on duty.

2) From the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant B and Defendant A’s past work experience, Defendant B’s status at the time of committing the crime, Kakao Stockholm text, e-mail, etc., sufficiently recognized the fact that Defendant B conspiredd to commit an act of outflow of trade secrets with Defendant B and an act of occupational breach of trust, but otherwise, the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted Defendant B of all the facts charged against Defendant B was erroneous.

3) The sentencing of Defendant A and C is unfair.