All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles and mistake of facts 1) The Defendants did not know about what act constitutes occupational breach of trust, and there was no intention to commit occupational breach of trust.

2) The instant data do not constitute a victim’s trade secret, and do not constitute a major business asset, and thus, the act of divulging such data does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust.

3) Therefore, even though the Defendants should be acquitted, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million; fine of KRW 4 million; fine of KRW 4 million; Defendant C, D, and E) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) As to the misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, if an executive officer or employee of a company disclosed business secrets to a competitor or released them without permission for the purpose of using them for his/her own interest, such act constitutes an occupational breach of trust at the time of withdrawal, and even in cases where such materials are not disclosed to many unspecified persons even if they are not trade secrets, and where they are a major business asset produced by an employer using considerable time, effort and expenses, the act

Meanwhile, even if an executive officer or employee of a company lawfully takes out data, which are business secrets or major business assets, and such taking out does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust, if he/she disclosed such data to a competitor company or did not return or discard such data for the purpose of using them for his/her own interest even though he/she had an obligation to return or discard such data at the time

In order to establish the occupational breach of trust, the perception and consequence of the breach of duty as a subjective requirement.