All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that there is no indication of military secrets on the e-mail file sent by Defendant L on August 6, 2012, and that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have known that the e-mail file constitutes military secrets only with the statement of S, etc., it is erroneous in the judgment of the court of first instance that found the above attached file guilty by mistake of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it cannot be deemed that the Defendant knew that the above attached file constitutes military secrets.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the Defendant K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”).

In light of the fact that L’s statement, as the representative director of the domestic defense industry, was obtained from the Defendant with overall control of the domestic defense industry, each military secret indicated in the facts charged by L sent by e-mail, is included in the scope of the information to be provided to the Defendant according to the agreement concluded between J and L, and that L’s statement that sent the above military secrets to the Defendant even though there was no clear request from the Defendant to display his/her ability, there is no credibility, it is unfair for the first instance court judgment that acquitted the Defendant on August 7, 2012, even if the Defendant discovered and collected the military secrets specified in this part of the facts charged, and leaked the military secrets on the aircraft programmingGPS system, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts and legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The fine (five million won) declared by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (five million won).

2. Determination

A. On August 6, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is determined as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal for mistake of facts. Around August 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at least 00 Hz00 Hz of the mining antenna, which is a secret part of 26-26, among the business content “the result of the 263 Joint Chiefs of Staff” included in the “the result of the 263 Joint Chiefs of Staff”; (b) the type of response mining; (c) the type of response mining; and (d) the antenna arrangement (number of 0.0 passengers).