The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A, B, and D are punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,00, and Defendant C is punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant A, D, and C notified the victim company of the termination of the instant commissioning contract on September 28, 2017, and thus, from September 29, 2017, they were no longer in the position of managing the affairs of the victim company. In addition, the judgment of the court below that held that the victim company’s losses incurred due to the Defendants’ acts are the difference between the commission to be received from the raw insurance company and the fee to be paid by the victim company to the insurance solicitor (2.5% or 6.5% of the insurance premium) and the victim company (2.2% of the insurance premium), which made the judgment of the court below that the victim’s losses cannot be prevented, is erroneous or misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the part of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Business Protection Act (No. 1) against the Defendants on the ground that it is insufficient to deem that the victim company’s customer information used by the Defendants was kept confidential by considerable effort, even though the Defendants conspired to do so at the same time and at the same place and disclosed customer information by accessing the victim company’s server, Defendant A, C, and D did not transfer the customer information managed by them to Defendant B, and did not know the customer information leaked by others. The lower court acquitted the Defendants of the part of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Business Protection Act (no. 2) against the Defendants on the ground that the customer company’s customer information by the Defendants was insufficient to deem that the victim company was kept confidential by considerable effort. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal by authority, the case is examined by the prosecutor, and the case is examined.