Defendant

All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B(A) of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”) does not constitute a trade secret. Defendant A and B(A) does not constitute a trade secret. The “PRJEC L planning”, “Character traffic” (hereinafter “instant planning”, “instant traffic,” and “instant planning, etc.”).

B) The Defendants refer to the instant planning, etc., and refer to the project MP video (hereinafter “instant video”).

(C) The Defendants did not have any intention to infringe on the recognition of trade secrets or trade secrets of the instant planning document, etc.

2) The sentencing of the first instance of the unfair sentencing decision (the sentencing of Defendant A: the fine of KRW 15 million, Defendant B: the fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.B. The prosecutor 1) under the circumstances where Defendant A’s obstruction of business (the fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles) by Defendant A’s operator of the victim company (the operator of the victim company) shows a strong intent not to discontinue the victim company, thereby hindering the victim company’s business by spreading a false fact to his employees.

Nevertheless, the first instance court which acquitted the obstruction of business has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The first instance court, which found Defendant A and B not guilty of the reason for the occupational breach of trust, found the above Defendants guilty of the occupational breach of trust on the amount of the victim’s property profit and the amount of the victim’s loss without specifically stipulating or examining the amount of the victim’s loss, is erroneous in the incomplete hearing. 3) It is not possible to punish Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (i.e., leakage of business secrets) (i., leakage of business secrets) by Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) as a fine without specifically stating or examining the amount of the pecuniary profit.