The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) (hereinafter “victim”) that the Defendant left Korea FF Co., Ltd. (F; hereinafter “the Victim Co., Ltd.”) and possessed with the storage device in the outside storage device, falls under the “major business assets” of the Victim Co., Ltd., and the Defendant was also aware of the intent of breach of trust in the course of business. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational breach of trust against “major business assets” and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. When an employee of a company takes out materials without permission from a competitor company or its own intent to use them for business purposes, the crime of breach of trust is deemed to constitute “major business assets” to the extent that it does not constitute “major business assets” to the extent that the said materials cannot be obtained without going through a holder because they are not disclosed to many and unspecified persons at least, and that they are considerable time, effort, and expenses for the acquisition or development of materials, even though they are not disclosed to the public, and that the said materials constitute “major business assets” (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3915, Jun. 30, 201, etc.). (b) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by health, oral proceedings, and records, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot obtain them without going through a holder, and it constitutes “major business assets and profits” to the extent that the files are not available to a large number of unspecified persons.