The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where an employee of the company removes the company’s material without permission for the purpose of divulging it to a competitor or using it for his own interest, if such material does not constitute trade secrets, and it cannot be generally obtained without permission from the holder because it is not open to many and unspecified persons, and if the person holding it is a considerable time, effort and expenses for the acquisition or development of the material and constitutes a major business asset to the extent that it can obtain competitive benefits from the competitor through the use of the material, it constitutes a breach of occupational duty and constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

Meanwhile, even if a company employee’s lawful release of business secrets or material business assets does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust, if he/she disclosed business secrets, etc. to a competitor company or did not return or discard them for the purpose of using them for his/her own interest even though he/she had a duty to return or discard them at the time of retirement, such act constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9089, Apr. 24, 2008; 2010Do3043, Jul. 14, 2011). 2. The first instance court of the judgment of the first instance, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, stated in the judgment of the first instance, (1) where each of the drawings of the first instance court (1), which were designed by the Japan S company, were kept in the form of a Japanese company G (hereinafter “damage”) and submitted only the content of the documents, and thus, it is difficult to view that the documents were modified or rejected.