The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court rendered a judgment on the charge of occupational breach of trust due to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of confidential business information, etc.), and on December 18, 2015, found the remainder of the judgment guilty, respectively. The prosecutor appealed against this, only stated “the assertion of mistake of facts as to the part not guilty” and “the allegation of mistake of facts as to the part not guilty” as the grounds for appeal, and there are no grounds for appeal as to the part not guilty of the above reasons. In addition, the part not guilty in the reasoning of the judgment of the lower court is not disputed, and it is deemed that the part not guilty was exceeded the object of public defense among the parties, even though this court had been

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820 delivered on March 12, 1991, etc.). Accordingly, with respect to the part of innocence as to the reasoning of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below is based on the conclusion of innocence and that of this court is not judged separately by this court, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted in mistake of facts, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets, etc.) among the facts charged in this case, and found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the premise that a crime of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets) is established when the trade secret is disclosed to a third party for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the owner of the trade secret, the lower court, on the premise that the crime of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Trade No. B”) was committed, further states the basis