The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) the victim C’s investigation agency and the person engaged in real estate brokerage business, the statements in the court below, and L/C’s statements, which are employees of the “D real estate office” in the operation of the victim, are sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed an occupational breach of trust by holding and using the customer information in violation of his/her duties, which is a major business asset, without returning or destroying it to the victim without the consent or consent of the victim

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust where a company employee removes materials without permission from a competitor company or its own intent to use them for the benefit of the competitor, even if the materials do not need to constitute trade secrets, the materials cannot be generally obtained without going through the holder as they are not disclosed to many and unspecified persons, and the holder of the materials is a considerable time, effort and expenses for the acquisition or development of the materials, and falls under a major business asset to the extent that competition benefit can be gained from the competitor through the use of the materials.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3657, Jun. 28, 2012).

The lower court specified in the facts charged of the instant case that “the contact number of the owner and tenant of the apartment in Gangnam-gu Seoul E-gu who received from the victim” and “the name of the apartment subject to a request for sale and purchase, etc. from the customer in the course of performing the real estate transaction brokerage business of the victim, contact number of the client, etc.” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “personal information of this case”), and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone in light of the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the above contact number of 3,00 persons are information owned by the victim or information owned by the victim.