All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on trade secrets, which are the requirement for trade secrets, under the crime of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), and the proviso to Article 33 of the Criminal Act, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confidentiality, which is a requirement for trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged against Defendant C (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Disclosure of Confidential Information, etc.).