The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The design drawings of this case, of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, are made public to many and unspecified persons, and the victim company did not bring about a considerable time effort cost, and thus does not constitute trade secrets or major business assets subject to the crime of occupational breach of trust.

In addition, the failure of the Defendant to destroy or return the design drawings of this case held at the time of retirement is due to a simple loss. Since the Defendant did not have awareness and intent to leak them to the competitor or use them for his own interest, there is no intention to commit occupational breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant, which erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the value of the design drawings of this case of unfair sentencing, the background and management method of the victim company's acquisition by the victim company, and the fact that the victim company suffered almost no damage by the defendant's act, the court below's sentence (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts: (a) when an employee of a company takes materials out without permission from a competitor company or his/her own intent to use them for the benefit of business, the act of occupational breach of trust is deemed to constitute a trade secret; (b) even if such materials are not necessarily necessary, it cannot be ordinarily obtained without going through a holder because it is not open to many and unspecified persons; and (c) the holder of such materials is a considerable time, effort, and expenses for the acquisition or development of the materials, and thus, constitutes a major business asset to the extent that the competitor may benefit from competition through the use of such materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3915, Jun. 30, 2011).