Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was employed on April 15, 1996 in the affected company (the state)B engaged in the security business, such as facility security business under the Security Services Industry Act, and entered on June 18, 2009 through June 18, 2009, and was in charge of customer service and contract management, from June 19, 2009 to July 28, 2017 as a person who was in charge of the C business by overchargedly holding the office to take charge of customer service and contract management, and the data related to customer information and management strategies such as customer information are the major business assets of the victimized company, and thus, there was a duty to maintain confidentiality.

Since the withdrawal of the victimized Company on July 28, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with D Daejeon Branch, a competitor of the victimized Company, and is in charge of the said D's business affairs.

On June 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a complaint with his result of his personnel appraisal and retired the damaged company, and had customer management information data, which is a major asset of the victimized company, and had the mind to use them for his own interest in the future when he is employed by the same kind of company in the future.

1. Around June 30, 2017, the Defendant attempted to transmit, to the Defendant’s personal e-mail (F), the file of “material condition list” stored in the damaged company’s North Daejeon Branch Office located in Daejeon Seo-gu E and 6th century (a customer management information on about 1,866 persons of the victimized company managed by the Defendant, which is about KRW 80) that the Defendant used in the work PC used by the Defendant, to the Defendant’s personal e-mail, but the transmission was interrupted by the damaged company’s security system.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duties, thereby acquiring an unregistered pecuniary advantage in the amount of data on customer management information, and attempted to cause property damage equivalent to the amount that may arise from strengthening the competitiveness of the competitor to the damaged company.

2. On July 4, 2017, the Defendant in occupational breach of trust is from among the files of the property status under paragraph (1) at the same office as that under paragraph (1).