Defendant shall be punished by a fine of twenty-seven million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From October 6, 2014 to June 13, 2016, the Defendant is a person who works as a vice head of the Victim F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “victim”) for the purpose of selling and selling, leasing, etc. the building in Busan Dong-gu E, and the real estate in the fifth floor from around October 6, 2016, and was engaged in the business of selling real estate of the said company.

The defendant, who is an employee of the victim company, has a duty to not divulge information about real estate provided by the victim company to another person according to a consignment contract, pledge, etc. concluded with the victim company and not concurrently engage in other competitors' similar duties.

A. Although the Defendant, as above, has a duty not to divulge information on real estate provided by the victim company to another person, the Defendant calls to H of the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), a competitor company around June 2015 (hereinafter “the victim company”), to sell the land in Busan-gun I, J, and K amounting to KRW 1,980,00 per square.

“Along with the provision of information, G was aware of the price for the sale of the G-owned real estate located in Busan-gun L, for a considerable time, effort, and expenses in the victim company, by setting a lower amount of the price for the G-owned real estate located in the Busan-gun L, thereby obtaining the benefits accrued from strengthening competitiveness, and the victim company suffered property damage equivalent to the amount of the reduced amount of the benefits accrued from the strengthening of competitive company G, a competitor, as above.

[Defendant/Defense Counsel asserts that the defendant's act of selling the victim's company provided by the defendant does not constitute a major business asset, and since anyone can access information, the act of offering the amount of divided price does not violate his/her duty.

However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above facts charged can be sufficiently recognized and the employees of the company.