Defendant

A and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

C Co., Ltd. is acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and Defendant B, each of the representative directors of the Victim Company C from July 2001 to November 2009, engaged in the export relay of H, which was manufactured by the Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”), to Vietnam. From around 2001, he first registered medicines (non-registration) with respect to H, and then received H’s suspended ingredients and content (hereinafter “instant data”) from the Victim Company in order to extend the effective period of validity of five years after the initial registration of H, around 2001. Thus, there was a duty not to use it only for the business related to non-party registration, provide it to other companies, or produce and sell identical or similar products by using it.

Nevertheless, around April 2009, the Defendants produced J itself using the instant data at the office of the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) located in the Vietnamese City operated by the Defendants (hereinafter “I”), and sold products from August 2009 to August 201, and acquired financial benefits equivalent to the market exchange price of the instant data at Vietnam. The victims suffered financial losses equivalent to the decrease in the profits arising from the decline in the competitiveness of the victim company due to the leakage of the instant data to the competitor company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Statement made by K witness in the second trial records, and each legal statement made by witness L and M in the second trial records;

1. The protocol of interrogation of the Defendants in the prosecution and the protocol of interrogation of the suspect as to the Defendants, K and M

1. Statement of the police statement to K;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A complaint;

1. The phrase “a person who administers another’s business” in the course of breach of trust as to whether the Defendants were a person who administers another’s business, when determining whether the Defendants were a person in charge of another’s business.