The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The issue of confidentiality, which is a requirement for trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, should be determined by considering the level of a person holding trade secrets in a specific case as a whole. The issue of whether the information has been maintained and managed as confidential by considerable effort.

Since the establishment of the injured company, the number of employees is very small-scale companies that have continuously been engaged in the business of maintaining weather radars only nine persons. Defendant A exclusively managed data such as each of the instant proposals, etc., and exclusively controlled Nom North Korea in which important information related to the business of the victimized company was stored. In fact, Defendant A instructed the employees to “the bid-related information is business secret and should not divulge it to the outside.”

Ultimately, the damaged company maintained and managed the trade secrets based on personal ties and trust by allowing the defendant A to exclusively and exclusively manage relevant information and blocking access to information from other employees or outside persons.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor meets all the requirements to constitute trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, including confidentiality, etc.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the above measures of the court below are justified, and there is no ground for appeal as alleged in the grounds for appeal.