All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Criminal facts against the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act by Defendant A and Defendant C are proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged that Defendant A committed an act of confusion with the business activities of the victimized company by publishing a newspaper using the trade name and the title of the victimized company, and rejected the grounds asserted by Defendant A and Defendant C as the grounds for appeal.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), relation to other Acts, trade name and use of similar trade name under the Commercial Act, or by erroneously applying the law or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

2. As to the defendants' violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act on the preparation for infringement of trade secrets, the court below can find out the preliminary facts that the defendants A and B conspired to infringe customer information useful to the damaged company.