The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust where a company employee removes materials without permission from a competitor company or its own intent to use them for its own interest, even if such materials are not necessary to constitute trade secrets, it cannot be ordinarily obtained without going through the holder because it is not open to many and unspecified persons. The owner of such materials is a considerable time, effort and expenses for the acquisition or development of the materials, and constitutes a major business asset to the extent that the competitor may benefit from competition through the use of the materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3915, Jun. 30, 201). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, on the following: 90-type drawings, 80-type 3D drawings, and the annexed list 2-type drawings in the judgment of the lower court, which were prepared by E to manufacture and sell the stable machine, do not constitute a major business asset of each of the above companies.

In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of occupational breach of trust was affirmed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational breach of trust, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.