The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

However, as to Defendant A, this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant’s use of business secrets is likely to use 20 files out of each file indicated in the list of offenses (hereinafter “technology files of this case”, and only the sequence in the case of referring to a specific file).

However, the other files were used because they cannot be used in the equipment of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) or are not completely completed files, as they were not available or corrected by the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant used 20 files and exceeded 20 files, and recognized the fact that the defendant used 73 files.

B) From among the instant technical files, the part concerning occupational breach of trust is not capable of obtaining useful information through the instant practical files, since the files are not retained by the file and are in the form of machine language, and it is impossible to do so only in the same environment as that of the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”). Therefore, it is impossible to obtain useful information through the said practical files.

Therefore, although the above execution files do not constitute a major business asset, the court below determined that the defendant's act related to the above execution files constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The U.S. file (the instant U.S. file 84) is one of the business secrets of the victimized company.

According to the computer evidence analysis data that was seized in the Sheshellical books and document files (for example, 62 through 66, 70, 71) and seized, the defendant was found to have stored the above files after perusal and modification during the period from June 2009 to March 2010. The defendant himself/herself is the above files.