A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

(Recognized Crime Name: Occupational Breach of Trust

B. Occupational breach of trust

C. Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

1. A.O.O.

2. (b) △△△△;

Kim Jong-tae

8.408

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months. 182 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against the Defendants.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. Ordering Defendant 2 to provide community service for 200 hours.

압수된 신성분계 방향성 전기 강판 제조 기술개발 1권(증 제3호), 방향성 전기강판 소둔 설비에서 혼합분위기가스 처리방안 연구 1권(증 제4호), 최고급 무방향성 전기강판 개발(①) 1권(증 제5호), SRA 후 저철손 무방향성 전기강판 개발 1권(증 제6호), 냉연공정 이용 중고급 무방향성 전기강판 개발(I) 1권(증 제7호), 냉연공정 이용 중고급 무방향성 전기강판 개발(ㅍ) 1권(층 제8호), 고자속 밀도 무방향성 전기강판 개발(ㅍ) 1권(증 제9호), Cr-free type 무방향성 전기강판 코팅제 제조(I) 1권(증 제10호), 고효율 전동기용 고급 무방향성 전기강판 개발에 관한 최종 보고서 1권(증 제12호), 자료 파일 1권(층 제13호), 자료 파일(냉연 경유재 및 L/S 공정별 제조기술 등) 1권(증 제14호), 1차 테크니칼 기술미팅 결과 1권(증 제30호), Pad 시험적용 보고서 1권(증 제31호), 방향성전기강판 Base 코팅 제어기술 개발 1권(증 제32호), 방향성 전기강판 탈탄판 표면 산화층 최적화 기술개발 1권(증 제33호)을 피고인 1로부터. 방향성 전기강판 Al 분석 1권(증 제15호), 방향성 전기강판의 Base 코팅 제어기술 1권(증 제16호), 방향성 전기강 판 탈탄소의 야금학적 고찰 1권(증 제17호), 주요 질문내용 및 답변 1권(증 제18호), 1차 테크니컬미팅 결과 1권(층 제19호), 주요 활용 가능 자료 1권(증 제20호), SL관련 문헌 및 정보(저온 재가열 방향성 전기강판 제조기술에 있어서 탄소 함량 영향) 1권(증 제21호), 고온 소둔 시 N 흡수량 제어기술 1권(증 제22호), KSC 무방향성 문헌 외 1권(증 제23호), 주요 활용 가능 자료 1권(증 제24호), Pad 시험적용 보고서 1권(증 제25호), CGO 저온재가열 이론 1권(증 제26호), 4-Zone 연속소둔 시뮬레이션 1권(증 제27호), USB메모리스틱 2개(증 제28호), 자료 파일(저온 가열방향성 전기강판에서 탄소첨가량이 2차재결정에 미치는 영향) 1권(증 제37호), 전강설비 1권(증 제38호), 고주파용 박물 NO 1권(증 제39호), Fe-AI계 고자속밀도 NO 1권(증 제40호), SRA 후 저철손 NO개발 1권(증 제41호), 저온 슬라브 가열 방향성 전기강판의 산세성 개선 조건 설정 1권 (제42호), 후탄탈 저온 CGO 1권(증 제43호), Fe-A계 HNO 공동연구 with Technobank 1권(증 제44호), Clear file 자료(방향성 성분기준 포함) 1권(증 제45호), 고배향성 규소강 제조시 열연조건이 2차 재결정성에 미치는 영향 1권(증 제46호), 자료 파일 1권(증 제47호), POSCO 다이어리 1권(증 제48호), 박물 CGO 1권(증 제49호), 신저온 HGO 자료 1권(층 제50호), 방향성 CAL 1차 탈탄 조건 1권(증 제51호), 고자속 방향성 문헌 &자료(KIST 용역) 1권(증 제52호), 고온 HGO 자료 1권(증 제53호), Novolipetsk 공법 CGO 외 1권(증 제54호), 영구자구 미세화 분석, Sn, P첨가영향 1권(증 제55호), P 첨가 HGO(현장) 시험이력 1권(증 제56호), CRM 관련 문건 1권(증 제57호), 자료 파일 (Baosteel 기술자와 기술협의 내용 수록된 노트포함) 1권(층 제58호), 2003년 연구계획/전력연구계획서/HEV 구동 Motor용 박물 개발 2003년 전기강판 기술현황 및 향후 대책 (사장보고) 1개(증 제59호), 전기강판 사용한 회전기의 특성예측 모델개발 보고서 1개(증 제60호), 시험 생산(제철소 고자속밀도) 시그마 관련 자료 1개(증 제61호), 열처리후 시험생산 1개(증 제62호), 2001, 2002, 2003 연구보고서 1개(층 제63호)를 피고인 2로부터 각 몰수한다.

Criminal facts

Defendant 1, a victimized company, was on August 31, 2006, serving as the team leader of the Esco Technical Development Promotion Team of Ssco Co., Ltd., and retired on or around August 31, 2006, and was employed as the president of the Nonindicted Company, a technology consulting company, and Defendant 2 was on September 9, 2005, retired from office on September 9, 2005, and currently serving as the managing director of the said Nonindicted Company. The person shall not acquire, use, divulge, or divulge trade secrets useful to the said company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the company, or divulge them to a third party knowing that the materials related to the technology of the sco’s production of the Esco’s electrical content are treated as trade secrets, and all of the materials related to the sco’s production of the Esco’s electrical content are prohibited from unauthorized reproduction, reproduction, or removal without permission. As such, Defendant 2 prepared a security pledge to protect the trade secrets, even if he did not use or divulge trade secrets.

1. Defendant 1:

From January 1996 to March 2006, 2006, at the office of the Spanco Electric Dialco's office located at port of port, 150 researchers from Spanco to March 2006, and research and development expenses of KRW 40.348 billion, which are trade secrets developed by investing a total amount of KRW 40.348 billion, and manufacturing technology of low temperature direction electric power plates, high-qualityless electric power plates, and facilities. The act of keeping all management-related materials is deducted from the office of the Spanco's electric Dialco's office, and then, the act of withdrawing the above trade secrets to the steel companies located in China for the purpose of the future technology consulting, etc., and the act of spreading them with an intention to acquire unjust profits

A. On August 2006, 2006, at the office of the former Esco trade force promotion team without permission, the research report on the production standards of the direction-based electric force plate, “development of new ingredients-based electric power manufacturing technology”, which is the trade secret of sco, was taken out without permission from that time until August 2006, 13 technical data, such as the table of crime (1) Nos. 1 through 13, such as the list of crimes (1) Nos. 1 through 13, are taken from that time;

B. On August 2006, at the same place as on the lower date and near the same day, a computer file called “BACFR.Pt”, which is a trade secret stored in Scco’s office Roco’s Roco’s Roco’s Round, was reproduced and transferred without permission on the part of the private-use USB camera, which was in possession, and a copy of the number of files in the separate crime list (B), including 243 computer files as indicated in the separate crime list (B), about manufacturing technology, equipment, photographs, and management information for the direction-based electric lecture, etc., and obtain Scco’s poco’s trade secret and obtain economic benefits equivalent to the market exchange price in the amount of the above trade secret, increase in supply to Scco, and strengthen competition’s competitiveness, thereby causing considerable loss in an amount equivalent to the decrease in the interest arising from the decrease in the amount arising from the increase in supply to Scco.

2. The Defendants conspired to:

On October 10 of the same year, at the south-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-si Mapo-si, Defendant 1 agreed to transfer data on the manufacturing technology, etc. of the Mapo-gu Mapo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Stop.

A. A. On May 15, 2007, at the office of the Hansan steel located in China, Defendant 1 disclosed, as above, the trade secrets of SPs SL-Poco with knowledge that Defendant 1 will be used in a foreign country, including four books of “ps SL-New Report 1st” (low temperature direction electric source research report), and the data leaked as described in paragraph 1(b) above, including 243 computer files of the attached Table 1(2), among the data leaked as described in the attached Table 1(b), the production technology, equipment photographs, and management information related to the direction-oriented electric sign, etc. containing 243 files of the attached Table 1(2).

B. On or around the 30th day of the same month, at the same place as the preceding paragraph, Defendant 1 disclosed the trade secrets of Scrocco, knowing that it will be used in a foreign country, in the same manner, in six books, such as 'P's Purling Sczes Ma1 DNL (the letter of intent to purchase the manufacturing equipment of fluco steel plates), which is trade secrets of Scco;

3. Defendant 2:

A. On September 1, 2005, at the office of the Electric Esco Technical Research Group in the Ssco Technical Research Center on the first and second day of the year, the documents stating “Sco’s trade secret HGO data”, “Sco’s trade secret” without permission for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to Ssco, as well as from September 14 to 44, 2005, from that time, 31 cases of technical data related to the manufacturing of the direction-based electric sign, trade secret, such as the list of crimes (1) Nos. 14 to 44, are carried out without permission;

B. On September 1, 2005, when withdrawing from the office of the above Esco's office, the office of the Esco's Esco in order to gain unjust profits or to inflict losses on sco, the office deleted the files "Coter equipment control method (cases)" or stored without returning them to the company, and five files of the Psco's trade secrets as listed in the [Attachment 1-5] Nos. 1-5 of the Esco's trade secrets. At the same time, the office of the Esco in order to obtain economic benefits equivalent to the market exchange price of the above trade secrets and to use the Fsco's trade secrets in order to increase the supply of sco's trade secrets and strengthen the competitiveness of the competitors, and the above office of Esco in order to use the Fsco's business secrets in the direction of Esco's use of the Esco's trade secrets in the direction of Esco's use of the Esco's trade secrets in order to increase the supply of sco and strengthen the competitiveness of the competitor.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. The point of acquiring and using each trade secret: Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) (as to the acquisition of trade secret No. 1 of the decision with respect to Defendant 1 and the acquisition and use of trade secret No. 3 of the decision with respect to Defendant 2)

(b) The point of occupational breach of trust: Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act comprehensively cover each of them: The point of divulging trade secrets overseas: Article 18(1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act cover each of them.

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the acquisition and use of trade secrets, the crimes of occupational breach of trust, and the punishment prescribed for each of the crimes of occupational breach of trust with heavier punishment)

3. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the crime of occupational breach of trust with heavier punishment)

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

6. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 2. Consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

7. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act (Defendant 2);

Judgment on the defendants and defense counsel's arguments under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code

1. Determination on whether the facts charged are unspecified

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that public prosecution should be dismissed on the grounds that the materials disclosed by Defendant 1 are only accompanied by a uniform and file name, and that part of them is independent trade secret of Spanco, and that the content and scope of the trade secret are not specified in detail.

B. Determination

(1) The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the object of a trial against the court, to specify the scope of defense against the defendant, and to facilitate the exercise of his/her defense right by specifying the scope of defense. Thus, considering the nature of the indicted crime, it is sufficient to specify the facts constituting the cause of the public prosecution by stating the date, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it is possible to distinguish the facts constituting the cause of the public prosecution from other facts. Even if some of them are unclear, the facts charged can be specified together with other matters indicated. Thus, if there is no impediment to the defendant's defense right, the effect of the public prosecution does not affect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do428, Apr. 26, 2007; 2003Do3984, Dec. 22,

(2) The facts charged against Defendant 1 are as follows: Defendant 1 had the documents listed in [Attachment 1] through 13 Nos. 1 to sco's trade secrets and computer files listed in [Attachment 1] to sco's trade secrets, and acquired and divulged sco's trade secrets by transferring them to sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's sco's s sco'.

2. Determination of trade secrets

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants and defense counsel asserted that the Defendants and defense counsels illegally acquired from the full-time engineers of the new one-time steel (NSC) in the new one-time steel system, not from developing any unique or inventive technology different from the new one-time steel system, so it cannot be deemed that the new one-time steel system is a trade secret, and the new one-time steel system's new one-time technology is a trade secret since it is not a trade secret of scco because it is not a trade secret of scco because it is not a trade secret of scco because it is a trade secret of scco because it is not a trade secret of scco because it is a trade secret of scco, the new one-time steel system's current patent period is terminated.

B. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence of the court, steco used 1 to increase the level of security of the company's internal information (S) - non-steco 1 to 0 non-steco 1 to 4 levels, and used non-steco 2 to increase the number of non-steco 2 to 0 non-ste 1 to 0 non-ste 1 to 6 non-ste 2 to 0 non-ste 2 to 1 to 6 non-ste 1 to 6 non-ste 1 to 1 to 6 non-ste 1 to 6 non-ste 2 to 4 to 4 non-ste 1 to ste 2 to ste 1 to ste 1 to ste 2 to ste 1 to ste ste 1 to ste ste 1 to ste ste ste 1 to ste ste ste 1 to ste ste 2 to ste 1 to ste 1 to ste ste 2 to ste 2 to ste 2 to ste 1 to

(2) Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

(A) The term "trade secret" means any production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which is not generally known and has an independent economic value, and is maintained and managed as confidential by considerable effort. As long as a trade secret holder strictly manages technical information, such as imposing a duty of confidentiality, on its employees, etc. Even if reverse design is possible and it is possible to obtain technical information thereby, such circumstance alone does not interfere with the deeming of such information as a trade secret. Further, the term "the person holding the information has an independent economic value" means that the person holding the information is able to obtain competitive benefits from the competitor through the use of the information, or that considerable expenses or effort is necessary for the acquisition or development of the information, and any information meets all the above requirements. If the above information has not reached the completed stage to the extent that it can be used for business activities immediately, even if no help is provided to a third party, or if only one is aware of a prototype, it does not constitute an obstacle to the above information as a trade secret (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do63964.

(B) First, as to whether the data leaked by the Defendants were trade secrets, the following circumstances are met, namely, ① Switzerland classify the data of this case as the highest security level, or at least classify them as social non-A while making efforts to maintain confidentiality at least to maintain confidentiality, such as receiving a security pledge and a trade secret protection pledge at the time of retirement. ② Since non-public information is not known to many and unspecified persons, it is sufficient that the information can not be ordinarily obtained if it is not obtained through the holder because it is not known to the general public, and it does not require unique or inventive step as argued by the Defendants to be recognized as trade secrets, and the data of this case are not classified as confidential or non-public information in the process of the implementation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by classifying the data of this case as confidential or non-public information, and thus, it also satisfies the requirements of non-public information disclosure and non-public information disclosure of new technology standards and non-public information obtained by the Defendants from the high level of production-standard or non-public information disclosure.

After re-ducts, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion that Spanco illegally acquired the low temperature electric steel manufacturing technology of Spancos and used it as it is without any research and development effort until now. However, according to the evidence submitted by the Defendants, the Defendants’ submission of each evidence, concluded a service contract with those retired from service in the new Japanese electrical system at the time of developing low temperature electric power manufacturing technology, and concluded a service contract with those who were retired from service in the new Japanese electrical system or Japanese technical advisory companies, which would have been provided with all kinds of data and information of the new electrical system. However, since Spancos were to apply some of the new electrical system manufacturing technology of the new nuclear system to the end of research and experiment while using the research and experiment repeatedly, or added them to the new electric system, it should be viewed that the new electric system manufacturing technology of the new nuclear system has been developed in a way different from the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system of the new nuclear system.

In addition, the Defendants asserted that the instant data, which they had known to the Supreme Court, is the new file file, and that the patent has already been terminated. However, even if some of the manufacturing principles and manufacturing standards are disclosed through patent, etc., they are disclosed to the public only within extremely broad and abstract scope. All of the instant data are data related to fishing know-how, equipment, business information, etc. prepared based on various experiments and repeated fishing results in scoo, and are not disclosed to the public.

(D) If so, it is reasonable to view that all of the data of this case leaked by the defendants constitutes trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and that the defendants were fully aware of such circumstances, and since it cannot be deemed that the technology of the new Japanese iron metal or that it constitutes an publicly known technology, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on public offering

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 2 entered the Nonindicted Company operated by Defendant 1 on June 2007 with respect to the facts of the crime set forth in Article 2 of the judgment, and made the education materials with the materials related to the manufacturing technology of the low direction electric sign board, etc., which Defendant 1 possessed by scisco, and provided education to Defendant 1, along with Defendant 1. However, Defendant 1 entered the service contract for the transfer of technology with the scisco, and provided education to the employees. However, Defendant 1 became aware of the fact that Defendant 1 transferred the materials related to the low direction-setting electric sign manufacturing technology, etc. to the sciscoon steel, the fact that Defendant 1 entered the service contract for the transfer of technology with the scisco, and entered the Nonindicted Company on around 5, 2007, which was before scisco, and thus, it was entirely known that Defendant 1 entered the Nonindicted Company.

B. Determination

(1) A public invitation of two or more accomplices who jointly commit a crime is not required under the law, but is sufficient when there is an implicit communication on the joint execution of a crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices who intend to jointly commit a crime. There is no direct evidence as to such communication, and it is possible to recognize it by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules. A public invitation can also be made to cooperate with all accomplices who realize a crime without the premise that all accomplices realize the elements of the crime by themselves. Whether it is a public invitation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding about the result of the act, the size of participation, the intent of control, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006).

(2) 살피건대, 판시 각 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 피고인1은 포스코에서 퇴사한 후 2006, 10.경 당시 00스틸 해외영업본부장으로 근무하고 있던 피고인 2를 만나 포스코에서 퇴사하면서 저온가열 방향성 전기강판 제조기술 등에 대한 자료를 가지고 나왔으니 중국 보산강철, 안산강철, 무한강철 등을 상대로 접촉을 하여 기술이전 사업을 같이 해보자고 제안한 점, ② 피고인 2가 위 제안을 수락하여, 피고인 1은 보산강철을 중심으로 협의를 진행하고, 피고인 2는 무한강철과 안산강철을 상대로 접촉을 시도하기로 한 점, ③ 피고인 1은 2007.1.-2.경 피고인 2에게 중국 안산강철과 무한강철의 전기강판 책임자와 접촉하기 위해 연락처를 알아보도록 지시하였고, 이에 따라 피고인 2는 2007. 2. 27.경 안산강철과 무한강철 관계자에게 이메일을 보내. 세계에서 최고 수준의 방향성 전기강판 제조기술을 가진 사람이 기술정보를 제공하고 싶어하니 전기강판 분야 최고책임자의 이름과 이메일 주소를 알려달라는 내용의 이메일을 보낸 점, ④ 피고인 1은 2006. 10. 9.경 보산강철의 판매 관련 간부인 Mr. Zhu에게 이메일을 보내 포스코에서 방향성 전기강판 기술개발을 담당했다고 하면서 한국에 오면 만나자고 제안하였으나 아무런 연락을 받지 못하였고, 다시 보산강철과 접촉을 시도하던 중 보산강철의 직원 양QQ로부터 만나자는 이메일이 와서 2006. 11. 27.경 중국 상하이로 가서 보산강철의 전기강판 책임자인 장00을 만나 협상을 시작한 점. ⑤ 그러던 중 피고인 1은 2007. 5. 10.경 보산강철과 저온가열 방향성 전기강판 제조기술 등 관련 자료 전부를 제공하고 그 제조기술에 대하여 컨설팅을 해 주는 대신 3년간 550만 달러(한화 약 50억 원)를 받기로 용역계약을 체결한 점. ⑥ 위 용역계약에 따라 피고인 1은 2007. 5. 15.경 및 2007. 5. 30.경 두 차례에 걸쳐 보산강철에 저온가 열 방향성 전기강판의 제조기술, 설비, 경영정보를 담고 있는 책자와 컴퓨터 파일 등이 저장된 노트북을 보산강철의 장00에게 넘겨준 점, ⑦ 위와 같이 용역 계약이 체결된 이후 피고인 2는 2007. 6. 초순경 피고인 1과 정식으로 고용계약을 체결하고, 2007. 6. 14.경부터 피고인 1과 함께 중국 보산강철에 가서 보산강철 관계자들에게 방향성 전기강판 제조기술 등에 대하여 컨설팅 교육을 한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 2는 피고인 1과 공모하여 판시 제2 기재와 같은 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀 보호에관한법률위반의 범행을 하였다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 피고인 2의 이 부분 주장도 역시 이유 없다.

The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing revealed that the defendants retired from the Scoco, each of which is the scoco, while obtaining the trade secret of Sco and obtained the trade secret of Sco with related data, such as the low temperature direction-setting electric lecture production technology, etc., and at the same time obtaining and using the trade secret data. The defendants conspired to transfer the above acquired data to Sco, thereby disclosing the trade secret of Sco with the knowledge that it will be used in foreign countries.

Since the Defendants acquired a high temperature electric power plate manufacturing technology from 196 to 11, the Defendants’ act of using a large amount of less than 150 billion won as research personnel and development technology developed by using approximately 40.3 billion won in total from 1996 to 11 years is likely to reduce production cost and increase profit rate compared to the existing high temperature electric power plate manufacturing technology. At present, only new steel and Posco have a unique position in the global level of technology. Since the Defendants’ act of using the high temperature electric power plate manufacturing technology from 00 to 00,000 to 10,000, the Defendants’ act of using the high temperature electric power plate manufacturing technology from 10,000 to 5,000 to 10,000,000,000 from 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

However, the Defendants did not have any record of punishment in addition to once, and Defendant 2 received proposals from Defendant 1 while serving in Switzerland after retirement, and subsequently participated in some of the instant crimes, and the degree of participation is minor compared to Defendant 1. Furthermore, the amount of profit actually acquired by Defendant 2 through the instant crime is only 17 million won in total that he received two times in the name of benefit from Defendant 1. In addition, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as per the order, taking into account all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant 1 was guilty of the crime falling under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, which is the crime of "the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes," Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act.

A. The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains economic benefits or causes a third party to obtain such benefits and losses to the principal through an act in violation of one's duty, and such gains and losses shall be judged in substance from an economic point of view. The gains from obtaining a trade secret are equivalent to the property value of the trade secret. If a company, such as a competitor, manufactures a product with the trade secret, the economic value shall be equivalent to the property value of the trade secret. If the cost of technology development is reduced due to the trade secret and the cost of technology development is reduced, and if a trade secret is developed to manufacture the product with the trade secret, the difference between the profits from the sale of the product would be equivalent to the difference in the case where the trade secret was not provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4704, Mar. 12, 199).

B. In order to punish as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), the amount of profit acquired by the criminal act should exceed five billion won, and first, we examine whether the amount of profit acquired by the criminal defendant 1 exceeds five billion won.

According to the fact-finding report on Scco, according to the POSCO's technology development cost calculation, damage estimated due to the leakage of the technology in manufacturing the POSCO's direction electric power plate from 1996 to 2006, Scco has developed low temperature direction electric power plate manufacturing technology by inserting approximately KRW 40.348 billion with research expenses and testing expenses, and due to the leakage of technology by the Defendants, it can be recognized that Scco has calculated the expected amount of damage to Scco as being above KRW 1.571 billion for the next five years due to the increase in the supply amount of the direction-setting electric power plate and the decline in sales price. However, considering that research and development expenses calculated as above are in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) or occupational breach of trust, the profits and losses in breach of trust should be realized from the perspective of economic profit and loss, and if the Defendants were not able to use the trade secret from the market price reduction in the price of the product.

As seen earlier, the Defendants entered into a consulting contract with Bosan Steel Co., Ltd. with a total of KRW 5,500,000 ($5,000). However, according to the contents of the above consulting contract, Defendant 1 entered into a technology consulting agreement with the above Bosan Steel Co., Ltd. for three years after the formation of all of the data of this case. In full view of the prosecutorial examination protocol and investigation report (Defendant 2 No. 3’s data analysis) on the Defendants, the Defendants entered the above consulting contract with the aforementioned employees into several times of education related to the trade secrets of this case, etc., and provided the above employees with data for the above employees, and notified them as soon as they obtained. Accordingly, according to each of the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that the total amount of USD 5,500,000 under the above consulting contract was the market price for each of the data of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above information is the market price for the data of this case.

Next, the damage suffered by Scco, the victim of the leakage of the data of this case, is a decrease in the profits of Scco due to the competitive company's product development, the strengthening of competitiveness due to the reduction of the quantity of the product, and the increase in the supply of a direction-based electric steel plate that may arise therefrom. Although Scco estimated the expected amount of damage for the next five years due to the increase in the supply and the decline in the sales price of Scco as above, it cannot be deemed as an accurate amount of damage due to the failure to accurately predict the expected amount of damage, and it cannot be deemed as an accurate amount of damage, and as long as the research and development expenses for the data of this case cannot be deemed as a decrease in the profits immediately, the damage suffered by Scco cannot be deemed as a decrease in the profits amount arising from the increase in the supply of the products and the enhancement of competitive competitiveness. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged on the premise that Defendant 1 acquired is 5 billion won or more shall not be found guilty in the crime of occupational breach of trust under the latter part of Article 325.

The presiding judge and the judge in order;

Judges Ethroop

The highest judge shall be appointed