Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant is only R (hereinafter “R”).

[Attachment 1] No. 1 to 10 of the List of Offenses 2012No. 2865 of the first instance judgment; hereinafter “the image of each of the instant radar” means the image by the radar of the W X panel.

(1) The Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) acquired by storage in the credit card-type USB, a portable storage device in violation of the R security regulations. However, this is deemed Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(i) panel luminous inspection equipment (AOI, hereinafter referred to as “AOI equipment”) supplied to R;

(C) and electrical inspection equipment (AC, hereinafter referred to as “AC equipment”)

) In the establishment and operation of a panel, a problem that enhances the likelihood of detection of defects that occurred in the panel and does not accurately specify the location of the defects (hereinafter referred to as “ditrop Psiting”).

(2) The Defendant, as indicated in the lower judgment, prepared the data No. 2012Kadan2865, and shared the said data with employees belonging to Defendant C and Q head office of Israel (hereinafter “ Q”). As such, the act of preparing and sending the data between Defendant Company and Q Q does not constitute the use and disclosure of industrial technology acquired through “illegal means” as stipulated in the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology (hereinafter “Industrial Technology Protection Act”).

3. The illegal use and disclosure of industrial technology prohibited by the Industrial Technology Protection Act requires a direct risk of infringing on the legislative purpose of the Industrial Technology Protection Act, and since the preparation and disclosure of data itself was conducted within the scope of customer's expectation, it is distinguished from the acquisition act.