The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

C Co., Ltd. shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts, and violating the principle of presumption of innocence under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. (1) Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) in the judgment.

The prosecutor pointed out the unhutiled sentence of the prosecutor in the appellate court, and stated that the strict sentencing should be made by supplementing the sentencing data, and ② The Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) with respect to the Defendant Company.

In determining the violation, even though Defendant Company and Defendant A concluded an employment contract from November 1, 2016, there was a substantial employment contract from October 26, 2016, which was the previous employee.

In determining whether Defendant Company violated the Information and Communications Network Act on October 28, 2016, and ③ each Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) against Defendants.

In light of the fact that the original interpretation or the Defendants’ assertion was not properly determined in determining whether the violation was committed, the lower court’s judgment was unlawful by infringing the Defendants’ right to fair trial by violating the principle of criminal punishment, the presumption of innocence, and the principle of trial on evidence.

2) The victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) with respect to determining whether to recognize confidentiality under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

of the E’s “E” code (hereinafter referred to as the “E”).

The instant bar code was managed as confidential by all the employees, such as setting up the accessible Pool on the accessible Pool

Therefore, the court below's determination that this constitutes trade secrets as provided in the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) On the determination of whether to use the bar code of this case, this part can be seen.