All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the data on criminal facts in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the data of this case”) do not constitute a major business asset, and the Defendant’s act of divulging the data of this case did not cause a risk of property damage to the victim E (hereinafter “victim”).

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The instant data by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts regarding the portion not guilty of the judgment below) was maintained as confidential by considerable efforts to the extent that it can be perceived that the information is kept in secret objectively, and thus constitutes a trade secret of the victimized company.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact 1) In a case where an employee of a company divulges business secrets to a competitor or ships them out without permission for the purpose of using them for his own interest, the act of taking them out constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11876, Jun. 23, 2016). Meanwhile, in a case where an employee of a company takes them out without permission due to the competitor or his/her intent to use them for his/her own interest, the act of taking them out constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do11876, Jun. 23, 2016). Meanwhile, in order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust, even if the relevant materials do not need to constitute a business secrets, it cannot be ordinarily obtained without going through a competitor, and the owner of them is considerable time, effort and expenses for the acquisition or development of them.