The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. It is true that the defendant recommended the customer F of the victimized company to join as E after the victimized company retired from the victimized company, but the defendant's solicitation is in accordance with the subparagraphs of the personal relationship, and there was no criminal intent to obtain any pecuniary profit or to allow E to obtain any unlawful profit, and the F also expressed its intention to refuse immediately the subscription, so there was no pecuniary profit by the defendant or E, and there was no risk of damage in relation to the victimized company.

B. In addition, since the damaged company did not individually pay the mobile phone for business, and both the Defendant stored and used the customer contact information on the personal mobile phone, and the Defendant did not delete the customer contact information stored on the mobile phone because the damaged company did not have the contact information stored on the mobile phone, it did not immediately delete the customer contact information in order to deny the illegal use of the contact information. The contact information of the damaged company did not constitute an important business property as it did not directly delete the customer contact information, and the Defendant could not use other information on the part of the clients other than contact information because it could not memory the customer's other information. Thus, the Defendant's contact with F cannot be viewed as an act violating the duty in handling the affairs in relation to the victimized company.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that part of the facts charged in this case is changed in the trial before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's ex officio.