Defendant

D All appeals against the Defendants by the prosecutor and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant D’s attorney’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the convicted portion of the judgment of the court below), Defendant D’s withdrawal from K on December 15, 201, which was not returned without being returned on December 15, 201 by the victim K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”); Defendant D’s “L” files are merely merely compared with the victim’s Mexico and China’s investment in the equipment of each of the manufacturing factories around September 2008, and the victim did not keep it confidential; thus, it does not constitute a major business asset of the victim company; Defendant D’s removal does not fall under the victim company’s business property profit or did not have any loss to the victim company.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust and by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of the court below that sentenced a fine of KRW 3,00,000 to Defendant D is too unreasonable.

The misunderstanding of the facts of the prosecutor’s fact and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the part of the judgment of the court below as to the innocence of the Defendants), the “O iron board printing method” report prepared in collusion by Defendant A, B, and C (hereinafter “the instant report”) includes the contents of the research progress and process of the victim company, and the victim company managed it at the expense of the outside. As such, the contents of the instant report constitute the business secrets of the victim company.

Defendant

D The “L” file sent by e-mail to Defendant A (hereinafter “L”) is not known to the public and has economic value as well as business secrets managed by the victim company at its external expense.

Defendant

The "T Technology Review" prepared in collusion with A, B, E, and F (hereinafter referred to as the "T Technology Review") includes the analysis of T Technology, and T Technology is the victim company.