The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of fact 1) The Defendant’s act of taking the instant file out is the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

(E) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) that manufactures and sells automobile parts without any competitive relationship with D.

(2) As long as the Defendant entered into a purchase planning team having almost little relation to cost management, the Defendant could not use the data taken out from D for business purposes, and thus did not have any risk of property damage to D. (2) The Defendant did not have an intention to obtain property benefits, and did not have an intention to incur property damage to D, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to commit occupational breach of trust.

3) Therefore, even though the Defendant’s act of taking out the files of this case does not meet the elements of occupational breach of trust, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. However, in light of the sentencing conditions of this case on unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a case where an employee of a company divulges a trade secret to a competitor or ships it out without permission for the purpose of using it for his own interest, such act constitutes an occupational breach of trust at the time of release (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4382, Oct. 30, 2003). Even if an employee’s act of taking out a trade secret or material which is a major business asset does not constitute an occupational breach of trust, if the act of taking out the trade secret or material which is a major business asset itself does not constitute an occupational breach of trust, even if the employee was obligated to return or destroy the trade secret, etc. at the time of withdrawal, but did not return or discard it for the purpose of using it for his own interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9089, Apr. 24, 2008).