2013rd class 7246 A. Occupational breach of trust

(b) Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (business);

Secrets, etc.)

1. A.

2.(a)K

3.(a)N

The highest heading (prosecutions), the highest order of public trial

Law Firm B, Attorney C, and D (for all the defendants, the defendant)

October 7, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000, by a fine of KRW 3,000,000, by a fine of KRW 3,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 3,00,00.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting each of the 100,000 won into one day.

Of the facts charged against Defendant K, “J-Final.x file,” “Sm.x file,” “SP2.tt file,” “year student information list (06.xls),” “201 [Fall 2012] school support and pass-up status,” “xl” file + passing date + student +.xlxxxx) file, “Fall 209-2009-2012 obtained, divulged, leakage, or use of trade secrets related to the file and occupational breach of trust,” “JDB.xlsx file,” among the facts charged against Defendant N, and those related to occupational divulgence and occupational breach of trust.

Punishment of the crime

From October 1, 2004 to April 30, 2012, Defendant A worked as the head office of the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd.”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd.”) as the head office in charge of study consulting on November 21, 201, and around May 1, 2012, Defendant A established H from the fifth floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Building to operate an study consulting company under the name of I U.S. Institute. From July 1, 2007 to July 31, 201, Defendant K worked as the head office of IT management division and the head office of information and communications management division of the victim Co., Ltd. from May 22, 2005 to July 21, 2011. Defendant N has been working as the victim Co., Ltd. as the head office of education planning office from May 21, 2012 to 31.

1. Defendant A

Defendant A is obligated not to engage in any unlawful act for personal interest in the course of performing his duties as a consultant belonging to the victim company, and shall not engage in any secondary or double employment, etc. Accordingly, Defendant A shall not engage in any unlawful act, such as direct or indirect payment, preferential treatment, convenience, entertainment, etc. from interested parties, and shall not provide the visiting students with consulting related to study, and all the amount of money, such as consulting fees, etc., acquired in return, shall be deposited with the company.

Nevertheless, on November 17, 2009, Defendant A provided students A with consulting related to studying at the victim company office at the victim company office, and received 1.2 million won in return for the deposit to Defendant A AX account in the name of Defendant A, and provided consulting related to studying at a new bank between around that time and December 24, 2011, and received 36.7 million won in total over 17 times and suffered property benefits and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount in the victim company.

2. Defendant K and Defendant N

Defendant K and Defendant N have a duty of care to ensure that the victim company's customer information DB data, etc. are managed as trade secrets or are banned from being leaked because they are major business assets and when they are withdrawn, they do not leak out to the company, such as returning or destroying the prepared data.

Defendant K and Defendant N, despite being aware of the fact that, in order to use the name, telephone number, cell phone number, e-mail address, mail number, address, address, school name, school name, parents' telephone number, parents' cellphone, parents' cellphone, and parents' cell phone address, etc. in the operation of the victim company A while operating the victim company and operating the I Study Center, they need customer information DB data, etc. managed by the victim company in order to use it for duties, such as the presentation for inviting parents organized by the I Study Center, they disclosed, acquired, or conspired with the victim company

A. Defendant K

Defendant K used the right of access to the customer information storage server located in IT room of the victim company as the information manager, and had access to the customer information storage server on July 30, 201, a day before the victim company retired, Defendant K stored customer information DB data stored in the server after accessing the customer information storage server by remote access to the computer for business of the victim company to the computer for business of the victim company.

Defendant K, around May 8, 2012, received a request from the victim AY Apartment 5 Dong 1305 from the victim company A, and consented to the request from the victim company DB data, and then, Defendant K disclosed the victim’s name, telephone number, cell phone number, e-mail address, mail address, address, school name, grade, parents’ address, parents’ telephone number, parents’ cell phone number, parents’ cell phone number, and parents’ e-mail with the victim company’s e-mail, and then disclosed the victim company’s e-mail and N-mail with no authority to access the said file.

As a result, Defendant K disclosed customer information DB files useful to the victim company with intent to obtain unjust profits in collusion with A or to inflict damage on the victim company, and at the same time, Defendant K obtained financial profits equivalent to the market exchange price where the amount invested in the accumulation of the above data for about six years, while Defendant K suffered financial losses equivalent to the same amount of the victim company.

B. Defendant N

(1) Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Disclosure of Business Secrets)

On May 10, 2012, Defendant N obtained from “JDB.xlsx files without access authority at the victim’s office by e-mail from A and K, and used them by means of either either either either either either either J-Final.x file, “Ss.x file” file, “Sms2.txt file” file, or “Sms2.ttt file” file, which was modified and processed into Q and S, and then sent them to Q and S by way of sending them to the Internet-based ppuri site.

As a result, Defendant N acquired 'J DB.xlsx files of customer information DB data useful to the victim company with a view to obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the victim company, and disclosed or used 'J-Final.xlsx files, 'Sm.xl.x file, 'Sms.xt file, 'Sm2.ttt file'.

(2) Occupational breach of trust

On May 10, 2012, Defendant N sent JDB.x files to A and K e-mail at the victim’s office, and then sent promotional materials for studying abroad, which are a trade secret arranged to be suitable for sending them to mail and text messages, by means of “J-Final.x files,” “SP.x file,” “SP.x file,” and “SP2.x file,” and then sent them to Q and S, or sent them using the website. On May 14, 2012, Defendant N sent them to the victim’s office by means of sending them to the victim’s e-mail: On May 14, 2012, 09: 209:39,0000 annual student information list (06-2.2.2.39) and “the victim’s major business information file, which is the victim’s business assets,” and 2011 [the victim’s major business information list : 2.3.5.2.1.25.21.2

As a result, Defendant N acquired, in collusion with Defendant A, financial benefits equivalent to the market exchange price in which the amount invested in the accumulation of data, such as confidential information of the victim company or customer information DB data, which is a major business asset, for about six years, while Defendant N committed property damage equivalent to the same amount in the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of Defendant N in the first protocol of the trial, and statement of each part of Defendant A and Defendant K in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, AZ and P;

1. Partial suspect examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against Defendant A;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning P andO;

1. Inquiry about the details of A transaction;

1. Each material attached to "counseling card of a student deposited in an individual account" among the additional material submitted on the seventh trial date;

Judgment on Defendants’ argument

1. Defendant A

A. The assertion

It is true that Defendant A received the same amount as indicated in the facts charged, but it is pure case cost that Defendant A received counseling or advice, regardless of the victim company, rather than formally provided at the victim company. Even if it should be viewed as consultation cost rather than personal case cost, it would eventually be paid by Defendant A as piece-of-law or counseling fee. It cannot be deemed that there was any property damage to the victim company.

(b) judgment;

(1) Whether it is a mere honorarium unrelated to the victim company

In light of the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, the amount received by Defendant A cannot be deemed as a reward for audit after Defendant A gave personal counseling or advice to the victim company regardless of the consulting provided by the victim company.

① In addition to the procedural convenience for submitting an application form for admission by university or college, such as document of financial certification, recommendation, delivery of letter of recommendation, payment of postal expenses, etc., and the provision of basic administrative services through the Ethyon map, it is inevitable that a series of acts, such as identification, diagnosis, direction presentation, evaluation, correction, supplementation, etc. conducted in the course of individual study consultation conducted for a specific student, with the aim of providing a specific student with the ability or capacity of the Ethy on board. Specifically, the study consultation provided by the victim company must focus on identifying the present situation, such as student grade, etc., presentation of school list to which it can be supported, method of recommendation, examination, correction, and interview practice of the parts to be supplemented to enter the major and university on the premise of this, and method of providing counseling or consultation without consideration, regardless of where the act is failed, it appears that the consultation or consultation is not provided for the victim to which extent it is not provided.

② Except in exceptional cases, Defendant A’s money reaches KRW 7 million, which is less than 1 million. In light of the amount’s scale, it is difficult to view it as a simple case cost in light of the amount, and rather, in the event that Defendant A entered into and maintained a contract for a fee, consultation fee, performance fee, etc. provided by the victim company, it is highly probable to deem that Defendant A actually provided consultation, etc. in lieu of a consultation provided through a fixed-sum consultation or a plaque agreement and paid for such consultation.

③ The time when Defendant A received the money as a honorarium seems to have not yet been prepared or determined whether to enter the relevant student. If Defendant A received a reasonable amount of money by simple title for personal help from Defendant A, deeming that the relevant procedures should have been completed is consistent with the empirical rule.

④ Defendant A did not engage in any unlawful act for personal interest, or did not establish and operate a secondary company including part-time work, double employment, or separate company during the performance of his duties. However, this is because Defendant A refused to prepare a written ethical pledge on the ground that it is a non-performance of share offering not supported by objective data even upon receipt of a request from the victim company. Defendant A was well aware that such ethical pledge applies to all employees of the victim company, and was actually employed by any other consortium, the content of the written ethical pledge was sought by himself.

⑤ Defendant A stated at an investigative agency that “A, among students who have no economic ability to use a regular package, has a student who provided only a high-priced package (Evidence No. 444 of the Evidence Records),” and that “A student who did not use a regular package (Evidence No. 444 of the Evidence No. 1) provided assistance by centering on advice that would assist him/her in passing, although he/she does not have the same service as a package, and a student who received a regular service provided such services as a global forum participation, TV set meeting, method, etc.” (Evidence No. 558 of the Evidence No. 558 of the Evidence No. 558 of the Record). It is inconsistent with the changing theory that only personal assistance or advice was given irrespective of the consulting provided by the victim company.

The above amount should be viewed as the amount to be paid to the victim company after the victim company received consultation fees or paid consultation in fact after the defendant A personally took part and received in compensation for it, which should have been paid to the victim company's income. The defendant A's assertion against this is not accepted.

(2) Whether no property damage has occurred to the victim company

Defendant A asserts that the part of the above money, other than value-added tax, would eventually be paid as piece rates or paid counseling fees, and thus, the victim company did not incur any property loss.

However, in order for Defendant A to pay the amount as performance bonus, etc. as alleged in its assertion, it is premised on the fact that the relevant student entered into a patch agreement or a fee consultation agreement with the victim company and paid the price accordingly, and the contract has been maintained. In the case of a student who paid each of the instant money, the relevant student did not conclude the patch agreement from the beginning, or re-conform the intent after the conclusion thereof. As long as the patch agreement, etc. was not concluded or has not been maintained, Defendant A did not have the possibility of receiving performance bonus, etc., Defendant A did not have the possibility of receiving performance bonus, etc.; however, Defendant A’s actual provision and payment of the price should have been provided through the regular consulting program, etc. operated by the victim company without excluding the victim company should be deemed as

The defendant A is not allowed to assert against this.

2. Defendant K and Defendant N

A. As to the common assertion

(1) The argument

Data from customer information DB delivered by Defendant K to A and N, files created or transmitted by Defendant N to be modified, processed, or transmitted by Defendant N from this, or data recorded therein do not constitute trade secrets.

(2) Determination

(A) The part of customer information DB data (JDB.xlsx files) and data processed by transformation from them (J-Final.xlsx files, SSS.x file, SS2j.tx file and SS2.tx file).

The term "business secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act means the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public through considerable effort and kept confidential by considerable effort. The term "not known to the public" means that information cannot be generally obtained from an unspecified person because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as publications, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004) because it is not known to the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004). It means that a holder of information may obtain competition benefits from competitors, or that considerable expenses or efforts are needed to acquire or develop information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9022, Apr. 9, 2009). 208.

In light of the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, it is reasonable to regard each of the above files as trade secret useful to the victim company.

① The aforementioned files are not known to the general public through publications, etc... It is difficult for Defendant A to easily obtain customer information DB data similar to the victim company. Defendant A asserts to the effect that other study consulting companies in the Republic of Korea collect and obtain customer information DB data similar to the victim company, and that the content thereof can be obtained even without going through the victim company due to the lack of different differences. However, it is difficult to recognize that the customer information DB data managed by the victim company was readily obtained through other channels. In addition, even in light of the motive and purpose of obtaining customer information DB data through Defendant K, the customer information managed by the victim company was difficult to obtain through other means.

② In the case of an studying consulting company, such as a victim company, it seems that the demand for students, etc. who need consulting, prior to the discovery or timely identification of the details of providing high-quality consulting information, is an important factor in the management of members who maintain the relationship exclusively and maintain the management. It is essential to accumulate personal information that is not generally disclosed, such as the name and contact address of members, through the consultation process, etc. In order to manage such members, it is essential to accumulate the personal information that is not disclosed in general. The data of customer management DB managed by the victim company is the result of such efforts for the past

③ A victim company separates from the operating server and manages a DB server. Customer information DB data is stored in the above DB server, which can be accessed only when the access code must be known. Such access code was known to the extent of the hardware manager, except Defendant K, who was the person in charge of information and communication management. It is impossible to extract information stored in the DB server without such access code. The victim company, around January 2012, is obliged to prepare a confidentiality pledge stating the duty of confidentiality when an employee is employed after entry.

Defendant K and Defendant N’s assertion that each of the above files is not a trade secret is rejected.

(B) Part of the annual files or data recorded on the remaining files [the annual student information list (06-new vers.xls), school support and passing status of 201 [Fall 2012] school support and passing status of 2011] files, 'xls' files, 'straw.xlsx' files, 'Fall 209-201-2012) files, 'Fall201-2012) files.xlsx.

1) In full view of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the above files or files have been managed as trade secrets.

Rather, according to the statement statement(Evidence No. 13, 14) made by P, the representative director of the victim company, in an investigative agency (Evidence No. 13, 14) it is recognized that each of the above files or the information recorded therein was not maintained and managed as confidential by employees, such as easily accessible through personal computers or not classified or notified as trade secrets.

It is difficult to regard the above files or the information recorded therein as trade secrets. Defendant K and Defendant N’s appeal on this point are with merit.

2) However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, it is reasonable to regard each of the above files or information recorded therein as constituting trade secrets, but at least as constituting trade secrets of the victim company.

① Some of the files or information recorded therein appears to be able to individually verify the content through an Internet site, etc. However, it is inevitable to rely on the independent business know-how or capacity of an study consulting company to create data in order to select useful materials for the operation of the study consulting company among such individual information and to compare or refer in a lump sum to other information.

② As can be seen, each file or material itself, which is a collection of prior and gathered information, is not disclosed to many and unspecified persons. Moreover, each file and information recorded therein, have been accumulated by the victim company while studying, consulting, consulting, etc. for a number of years, and thus requires considerable time and effort to create such file or material. Whether such file or material is retained, the content and content thereof, diversity, originality, etc. are likely to affect competition interests for competitors, such as the pertinent study consulting company’s business ability.

The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a company’s employee takes out these materials constituting a major business asset without permission due to a competitor’s or intent to use such materials for his/her own interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3657, Jun. 6, 2012).

B. As to Defendant K’s assertion

(1) The argument

A had no intention to divulge or use trade secrets or breach of trust in the course of delivering customer information DB data.

(2) Determination

(A) part of customer information DB data (JDB.xlsx files)

The delivery by Defendant K to A of the above files is after A retired from the victim company.

Defendant K asserts to the effect that A, a representative director and a person by marriage in relation to A, without knowing the fact that he retired from the victim company, was able to request the provision of the above file and provided it. However, according to the statement(Evidence No. 1166, 1167 of the Evidence No. 1167 of the Evidence No. 1167 of the Record), Defendant K explicitly stated that A, without having known that he would establish the victim company and set up the victim company B and H and hold a seminars for a new hosting of the company, and that he sent the contact information necessary for the above file.

Defendant K’s assertion that there was no intention to divulge trade secrets or breach of trust in the course of delivering the said file to A is rejected.

(B) The remainder of the files or materials

According to the written indictment, the prosecutor is also charged with the acquisition, leakage, or use of trade secrets and the crime of breach of trust in relation to the files of customer information that Defendant K directly leaked to A and N, not only J-Final.x file, 'Sms.tx file, 'Sms2.tx file, 's annual student information list' file, 'Fall 201' [Fall 2012] school support and pass status.xl file, 'xls' file + student number + 'xl.xl.xl.x) file, 'Fall 209-2009-201.xl.xl. file, 'Fall 2012' file, 'Fall 209-2012' from A and N.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above files or information recorded was leaked or leaked by means of converting and processing customer information DB data and delivering them to Q, etc., or by adding them to e-mail, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant K conspireds with A as well as N.

In this part, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention or a conspiracy with respect to the acquisition, leakage, or use of trade secrets and occupational breach of trust due to the leakage of each file or any information recorded therein. The defendant K's lawsuit in this part is with reason.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendants

Articles 356 and 355 (2) of each Criminal Code [the point of occupational breach of trust; the damage legal interest of each occupational breach of trust against Defendant A is a single and equal or similar to that of each occupational breach of trust, as well as the form of crime, even though two years have passed, it appears that several acts of breach of trust are a series of acts by a single criminal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7813, Aug. 18, 201)] of each Criminal Code; Article 30 of each Criminal Code (in the case of Defendant K and Defendant N)

○ Defendant K and Defendant N

Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (acquisition, divulgence, or use of trade secrets)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code (the crime of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the acquisition, leakage, or use of each file or information about Defendant K and Defendant N, and the crime of violation of occupational breach of trust, each of the crimes of violation of occupational breach of trust, and each of the punishment provided for more severe punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and 50 (Aggravated Punishment on Defendant N) of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment on Crimes of Occupational Breach of Trust as provided for in Articles 38(1)2, and 50 (B-Final.x file, 'Sms.xtttt' file, and 'Sms2.ttt. file outflow) of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

In light of the fact that property gains acquired by the above defendant through the crime of this case are not more than KRW 36 million, and that the crime of this case was committed using personal trust relationship with the victim, and that it did not reach an agreement with the victim, etc., the quality of the crime is not weak.

However, the above Defendant appears to have contributed to increasing the business performance of the victim company when it works for the victim company in a normal way. Although the above Defendant acquired the amount of money that the victim company would have become the revenue of the victim company in violation of his/her business duties, it does not appear that the above Defendant had induced the victim company to receive personal counseling from the above Defendant without intentionally going through consultation on studying abroad provided by the victim company (the victim company's side is doubtful that the above Defendant had induced the above defendant to do so, but there is no objective data supporting such circumstances in addition to the vague trend of the representative director of the victim company, etc.), it appears that the above Defendant contributed to increasing the business performance of the victim company. Although the above Defendant did not reach an agreement, the above Defendant made efforts to pay damages by depositing a certain amount of money for the victim company, etc. The above Defendant was the first offender, but the above Defendant's crime of this case is not likely to have been committed in violation of his/her business duty and has been committed in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, etc. (the above Defendant's crime of this case was committed before and after leakage of the victim company's trade Secrets.).

2. Defendant K and Defendant N

In light of the fact that the above defendants obtained or become aware of the business necessity in the course of performing their duties in the victim company, or disclosed or used the trade secrets or major business assets to the outside, and caused the result of breach of trust, it is not good that the crime is committed.

However, the above Defendants were actively involved in each of the crimes of this case led by A, who was their superior, and did not seem to receive any consideration, and A, which is the principal accomplice with respect to each of the crimes of this case against the above Defendants, was separately indicted as stated in the grounds for sentencing against A in the preceding sentence. A deposited considerable amount of money in relation to each of the crimes of this case, and the above Defendants’ initial offenders and reflects the mistake, and other various sentencing factors indicated in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, and conditions before and after the crimes, shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Part of Innocence (Defendant K, Defendant N)

1. The acquisition, leakage, or use of part of the trade secrets against Defendant K and Defendant N

(a) Common parts;

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant K and Defendant N conspired with A on May 14, 2012, at around 09:39:0, the files of “annual student information list” and “2011 [Fall 2012] school support and pass-up status.xls” files, on May 14, 2012 + the number of successful applicants + the student + the student’s fixed.xlsxxx on May 31, 2012, and on May 11:40, 2012, each of the files was divulged by sending them to A’s e-mail.

(2) Determination

The information recorded in the above files or files for the same reason as stated in the judgment on the common assertion of Defendant K and Defendant N [the part on the claim of Defendant 2. A. 2. (b)] is difficult to view that the information recorded in the above files or files constitutes trade secrets.

In addition, as seen in the above part of the judgment on Defendant K’s assertion [the part on the Defendant’s assertion 2.2.2.(b)] as seen in the above part of the judgment on Defendant K’s assertion [the part on the Defendant’s assertion 2.2.(b)], there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant N conspiredd with A, as well as Defendant N, by transmitting each file or any information recorded therein to A’s email.

(3) Conclusion

This part of the facts charged against Defendant K and Defendant N constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. In accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant K is acquitted, and Defendant N is guilty of a crime of occupational breach of trust as long as the crime of occupational breach of trust is found guilty on the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the divulgence of trade secrets (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do11656, Jun. 14, 2013).

B. Defendant K

(1) Summary of the facts charged

On May 10, 2012, after Defendant K conspired with N, A, and N obtained “JDB.xlsx” files from A and K by e-mail at the victim’s office office, and then, Defendant K used them by means of sending them to Q and S by means of e-mail, which is an Internet letter, as appropriate for sending promotional materials for studying abroad, which are arranged to be suitable for sending them by mail and text messages.

(2) Determination

As seen in the above part of the judgment on Defendant K’s assertion (as seen in the part of Article 2.2.2(b)(b) of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant K conspiredd with N or N to use the aforementioned files by either disclosing them to Q, etc. or sending them by using the Internet text message delivery site.

On the other hand, N around May 10, 2012, “JB.xlsx files without access authority are recruited by Defendant K to acquire them by e-mail.” The fact that N received the said file from Defendant KO is recognized. However, Defendant K is a person who is able to become aware of and use the customer information DB.xls file as part of the customer information DB data, and thus, has already acquired the relevant trade secret (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do9433, Oct. 15, 2009; 2012Do317, Jun. 28, 2012). Such act of Defendant K carrying the said file, which is a trade secret, out of the victim’s external data, to transfer it to NO without access authority, and cannot be deemed as a joint principal offender of a trade secret, as seen earlier.

(3) Conclusion

This part of the facts charged against Defendant K also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. In accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, innocence shall be pronounced.

C. Defendant N

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant N conspired with A and K on May 8, 2012, after receiving the request from K to send DB data of the victim company's customer information from AY apartment 5 Dong 1305 of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant N gave consent to the request, and then, Defendant N disclosed the file of 10,687 students from among the data of customer information DB to Defendant N’s e-mail, including name, telephone number, mobile phone number, e-mail address, mail number, address, school name, school name, parents’ address, parents’ telephone number, parents’ cell phone number, parents’ cellphone, and parents’ hand-on address.

(2) Determination

According to the written indictment, the prosecutor is asking not only the part acquired by Defendant N in collusion with Defendant N in relation to the file of J DB.xlsx but also the part that K disclosed to Defendant N in collusion with Defendant A and with Defendant N, for the crime of divulging trade secrets.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above file was leaked to Defendant N, etc. upon K’s request, and Defendant N conspireds with Defendant N as well as Defendant K.

(3) Conclusion

This part of the facts charged against Defendant N constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. In accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, innocence is pronounced.

2. Partial occupational breach of trust against Defendant K and N

A. Defendant K

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant K conspired with N and DB.xlx, among the victim’s customer information DB data, sent the files to N and A, and N around May 10, 2012, “J-Final.xlx files,” “Sm.x file,” “Sm.x file,” “S2.x file,” and “S2.x file,” and “10.2.3 of the victim’s personal information files, which are the victim’s trade secrets, were sent to Q and S by means of converting them into postal and text messages, or by means of sending them to Q and S, which are the Internet text files, on May 14, 2012.

(2) Determination

As seen in the above part of the judgment on Defendant K’s assertion [the part on the Defendant’s assertion 2.2.2.(b)(b) of the judgment], there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant K conspiredd with A as well as N in the process of divulging the aforementioned files or information recorded therein (the foregoing part on the Defendant K’s occupational breach of trust, excluding the aforementioned part on the DB.xlsx files, and the remaining files or information recorded therein) after transforming them, or transmitting them to A’s e-mail.

(3) Conclusion

This part of the facts charged against Defendant K constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. In accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, innocence shall be pronounced.

B. Defendant N

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant N conspired with A and K on May 8, 2012, after receiving the request from K to send DB data of the victim company's customer information from A, Dobong-gu Seoul AY apartment 5 Dong 1305, Defendant N consented, Defendant N disclosed the file of 10,687 students, including name, telephone number, mobile phone number, e-mail address, mail number, address, school name, grade, parents' address, parents' telephone number, parents' cell phone number, parents' cell phone number, and parents' cell address, from K’s e-mail, to Defendant N’s e-mail without access to the above file.

(2) Determination

According to the written indictment, the prosecutor is asked for the crime of occupational breach of trust due to the public tender with the defendant N in relation to the part that K leaked to the defendant N et al. in relation to the DB.xlsx file.

However, as stated in Section 1.C. (2) of the aforementioned part of the acquittal, the above file was leaked to Defendant N, etc. upon K’s request, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant N conspireds with Defendant N as well as K.

(3) Conclusion

This part of the facts charged against Defendant N also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. Innocence is pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judge Han Sung-soo

A person shall be appointed.