The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant retired from the victim company in violation of his/her duties, as stated in the facts charged; (b) removed the victim company from the company without permission; and (c) perused and used it for the competing company; (d) thereby causing property damage to the victim in an amount necessary for the preparation, etc. of business data files; and (e) sufficiently recognized that the Defendant took property benefits equivalent to the same amount; (b) however, the lower court acquitted the

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant, from around September 2014 to June 15, 2015, worked for the victim agricultural company D as an employee and was in charge of administrative affairs, such as various permits, reports, product entry, and removal.

On June 15, 2015, the Defendant retired from the victim company on the ground that the Defendant was less paid a salary, and entered the E Co., Ltd. in competition with the victim company on June 2015.

The defendant shall not disclose or divulge to a third party any technology, business, or managerial secrets he/she has acquired during the period of office after the termination of the employment contract, or any other reason, such as intentional or willful negligence, and shall bear civil or criminal responsibilities if he/she violates this covenant.

“After entering into a confidentiality agreement to the effect that “,” a pledge of confidentiality was drawn up.

Therefore, the Defendant had a duty to prevent leakage of confidential information about technology, business, and management obtained while working in the victim company.

Nevertheless, around June 15, 2015, the Defendant retired from the victim company and was in custody of the victim company’s business operations, such as “HCCP data,” etc.