All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) (1) of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Disclosure of Business Secrets, etc.) (A) of each of the materials listed in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the materials of this case”) are already widely known to the same industry as well as can be easily sought through the Internet. After the construction of a motor vehicle, competition companies can easily obtain access through the reverse design, etc.

No data can be maintained as confidential by the injured company's considerable effort.

Therefore, each of the above data does not constitute “business secrets” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

(B) Defendant B had no experience of designing automobile parts by R, S, T, and U, the employees of the above Defendant, and thus, Defendant B refers to the “AC” file server used by the employees of the instant file server L company’s partner company to simply refer the instant materials to “reference” during the process of designing their respective duties.

“The foregoing R et al. merely did not use the instant materials for their design work.

(2) Since U.S. employees of Defendant B had deleted the materials of the victimized company stored in the instant file server on his own judgment before receiving instructions from the said Defendant, the said Defendant cannot be the principal offender of the crime of destroying evidence.

B. As to each sentence of the lower court (defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months; imprisonment of one year and one year; Defendant B), the Defendants argue that the Defendants are too unfasible, and that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant B’s mistake of facts