The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not obtain Q’s “CAD file” from C, and a copy of the confirmation drawing was made in the USB of C, but this does not constitute a trade secret of the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), but does not constitute an illegal acquisition. Although the Defendant did not have the purpose of using the production technology of ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case in violation of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on whether Q Q’s assembly-related CAD file was acquired, C, in a restaurant around May 201, included the following facts: (a) the fact that: (b) not only the Defendant met the Defendant at the time but also the confirmation width drawings, made the Defendant copy of the materials stored in C’s USB at the time (Evidence No. 966); (c) the Defendant also included QCAD drawings in the USB received from C from the investigative agency.

In addition, the facts that the principal stated that QCAD drawings were made by using five foot QCAD drawings that he did not know about the process of acquisition, and that he provided it to Taiwan on July 201 (Evidence No. 724, No. 794 of the Evidence No. 724 of the Evidence No. 724 of the Evidence No. 794 of the Record) can be recognized. Thus, the Defendant acquired Q Q AD files as stated in the facts charged.

B. Whether the defendant's invention is trade secret (1) since the production technology of prisoners of war is a public technology that is owned by domestic enterprises other than the victim company, the defendant's invention is not trade secret, and since the defendant's accurate part map which has been reproduced is old and its value is infinite, the defendant's information obtained by the victim company is characterized by the non-official nature, newness, and economic usefulness required as trade secret.