All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime regarding the part of violation of the Industrial Technology Protection Act as stated in the judgment among the charges against Defendant B, among the charges against Defendant B (2) Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated in the table of crime (3) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., (hereinafter “Industrial Technology Protection Act”), the part of violation of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology (hereinafter “Industrial Technology Protection Act”), the part of the charges against Defendant C as indicated in the table of crime (6) Nos. 9 and 10 of the Industrial Technology Protection Act as indicated in the judgment among the charges against Defendant C, and the part of violation of the Industrial Technology Protection Act as indicated in the table of crime (7) of

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the exercise of tiny rights and the protection

Meanwhile, the Prosecutor appealed on the part of the lower judgment against Defendant D, but did not state specific grounds for objection in the petition of appeal or appellate brief.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C, the lower court convicted Defendant B and C of the remainder of the facts charged against Defendant B and C, excluding the aforementioned not guilty portion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the exclusion of illegally collected evidence, the violation of the Industrial Technology Protection Act, and the establishment of crimes of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

The Criminal Procedure Act.