All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part concerning the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust pertaining to the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust is related to the technology developed by the Defendants as an employee’s invention, and even if the name is deemed the victim, the Defendants actually belong to the Defendants. Therefore, insofar as the Defendants received the refund of the patent right in this case under the circumstances where the Defendants did not receive lawful compensation, the Defendants’ act does not constitute occupational breach of trust or constitutes an act of occupational breach of trust, and the illegality is excluded by social norms. 2) The Defendants’ act on joint violation of trust is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules.

3) The part concerning Defendant A’s act in relation to the search and seizure in the room is difficult to be deemed to fall under “search”, and even if it falls under “search,” the illegality is excluded. B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too weak. 2. As to the Defendants’ assertion on mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendants’ occupational breach of trust, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act constitutes occupational breach of trust, while the Defendants’ act in Article 1(1) of the part regarding “determination of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles as to the Defendants’ assertion on the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust” constituted occupational breach of trust, and that the illegality does not constitute a legitimate act. In light of the records of the instant case, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion on the joint admission of the Defendants, the lower court also rendered a judgment on the Defendants’ and the defense counsel’ assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.