The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, each of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, which the court below convicted, does not constitute a principal business asset in relation to trade secrets or occupational breach of trust as prescribed by the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), and there was no intent to commit occupational breach of trust against the defendant.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of each of the above criminal facts, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The materials of each charge that the court below found not guilty of the facts charged constitute trade secrets and major business assets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Therefore, although the court below should have sentenced all of the verdict of innocence, it erred by misunderstanding the facts of not guilty of each of the above facts charged and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On March 6, 2012, 2012, the Defendant’s ground for appeal by the Defendant is determined as follows: (a) since the relevant research and development data, etc., which the Defendant came to know while working in the Victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim D”) are essential assets for a company’s trade secrets, business, and technological significance, the Defendant’s duty should not be taken out from the outside or disclosed to a third party.

On March 6, 2012, at around 17:45, the Defendant, at the office of the Korea Development Institute of Technology and Science of the foregoing Company, (i) the content and performance of the research technology, design results, development plans, etc. of the above-mentioned company’s material asset interest, which was kept in the Defendant’s office PC.