1. Plaintiffs, Company A and Company B, commenced a criminal complaint against Defendants, X and Y as well as Z, a Defendant of the same action, in a ground that the Defendants jointly involved in committing a crime of leaking industrial secrets, while the three, in its form, engaged in a relationship of conspiracy.

2. Although the Plaintiff, Company A, only withdrew the criminal compaint against Z, the Defendant of the same action, because the Plaintiff, Company A, commenced the criminal complaint against Defendants, X and Y as well as Z, the Defendant of the same action, in the ground that the Defendants jointly involved in committing the crime of leaking industrial secrets, the effect of the withdrawal of the criminal compaint against Z, the Defendant of the same action, by the Plaintiff, Company A, should also be applied upon the joint Defendants, X and Y, pursuant to Article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that a criminal complaint is not dividable.

3. Regarding the statement of the written petition for appeal by the prosecutor, in which the grounds of the criminal complaint against Z, the Defendant of the same action, by the Plaintiff, Company A, are different from the criminal facts of Defendants, X and Y as stated in the indictment on merits, because the joint actus reus by Defendants, X and Y as well as Z, the Defendant of the same action, comprises lobbying clients by Z, the Defendant of the same action, on behalf of Company C, who asserted that the product of Company C is the same as that of Company A, the Plaintiff, as its R&D personnel is transferred from Company A, and manipulating the clients to switch their orders by offering trading conditions such as lower sale price than that of the Defendant’s product, in accordance with the description of paragraph XX of pages XX to XX of the criminal complaint dated DD/MM/YY by the Plaintiffs, Company A and Company B, it is thus that the Plaintiffs, Company A and Company B, have treated the actus reus as the joint actus reus by Defendants, X and Y as well as Z, the Defendant of the same action. As a result, there is no facts existed as asserted by the prosecutor that the Plaintiff can withdraw its complaint merely based upon this portion of the actus reus due to the judicially one count principle, and the criminal case decision of 2008 Tai Shang Zi 2636 by the Supreme Court is therefore not applicable in this case.

4. Regarding the statement of the appeal by the prosecutor on behalf of the Plaintiff, Company A, in which the indictment on merits is only effective upon the acts by the Defendants, X and Y, without considering the part by Z, the Defendant of the same action, so the judicable object shall be limited within the scope of the indictment, because the court will not hear a criminal case that requires a complaint unless a legitimate complaint is commenced in advance, and the court will dismiss the case pursuant to Article 303, Sub-Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the complaint has been withdrawn before the public prosecution was commenced by the prosecutor; further, in order to judge whether the public prosecution lacks prerequisites for commencing a criminal complaint, the court shall examine the whole file and evidence of the case as well as the asserted fact and the withdrawal of the complaint by the Plaintiffs, rather than merely depending upon the criminal fact stated in the prosecutor’s written indictment, so as to determine the scope of the non-dividable complaint and to decide whether the public prosecution is lawful accordingly, it is therefore that this portion of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor and the Plaintiff, Company A, is not admissible.