Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A from May 201 to October 2014, A worked as a deputy head in charge of the affairs related to the development of equipment and parts of semiconductors, etc., such as semiconductors, which were established for the purpose of the development, manufacture, and sale of semiconductors, etc., located in The wife population D (hereinafter “victim”) in the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”), a corporation, which is established for the purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling equipment and parts of semiconductors, etc., which were located in the wife population D, and was a person who manufactured and sold the heat exchanger (ETM) in the name of his wife from October 2013 to November 2016. Defendant B worked as the head of the department in charge of the design and development of the electric lurber exchange (ETM) in the damaged company from April 201 to June 2015, and was operated as Defendant A as Defendant A.

The Defendants, who were in charge of the development of the electrical lives of the victimized company, had a duty to not arbitrarily leak major business assets of the victimized company to a third party or competition company, and there was a duty to return or discard major business assets acquired while employed by the victimized company, because, around September 2014, the Defendants prepared a written pledge stating that “the secrets of the victimized company they came to know while in office shall not be disclosed or disclosed against the will of the company even after retirement, and shall not be used for unjust purposes.” At the time of retirement, the Defendants returned all data related to the secrets of the company held while in office, as well as the company’s trade secrets should not be used without the permission of the company, or should not be disclosed to a third party without the permission.” In case of retirement of the victimized company, the Defendants had a duty to return or discard the major business assets acquired while employed by the victimized company.

Nevertheless, the Defendants carried out electric livers-related data, a major business asset of the victimized company, in the past, and operated by the Defendants.