All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business without permission obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain such benefit by an act in violation of his/her duties and thereby causes loss to the principal. Here, the term "where property damage is inflicted on the principal" includes not only cases where a real loss is inflicted, but also cases where a risk of actual damage to property arises (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4382, Oct. 30, 2003). Therefore, if 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/her own interest, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established when the materials are taken out, and even in cases where the materials are not disclosed to an unspecified number of unspecified persons and are major assets produced by an employer using considerable time, effort, and expenses, the act of removal of such materials constitutes an

In addition, even if a company employee had a duty to return or destroy trade secrets, etc. at the time of retirement even though he/she had a duty to return or destroy them to the competitor, or did not return or discard them for the purpose of using them for his/her own interest, such act constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9089, Apr. 24, 2008; 2008Do9433, Oct. 15, 2009). The recognition of criminal facts ought to be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9089, Apr. 24, 2008; 2008Do9433, Oct. 15, 2009).

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). 2. The lower court, on the grounds the Defendants leaked, on the attached Form 1 of the first instance judgment.