When defending employees accused of stealing company secrets, the following logical framework can be used to associate behavior with “interest in technological innovation”, while emphasizing the key points of legal defense. Please note that this recommendation needs to strictly follow legal ethics, and the specific strategy needs to be adjusted by the lawyer according to the actual case.： --- ###**Defense logic framework** 1. **Motivation positioning: curiosity rather than profit-making** -Emphasize that employee behavior stems from “the pure pursuit of technological breakthroughs”, not economic interests or malicious competition. For example： *"He regards technology as a public knowledge asset and believes that breakthrough innovation should serve a wider range of industry progress, not be limited to a single enterprise. ”* -Cite evidence of his past behavior (such as open source contributions, technical blogs, and academic exchanges) to prove his long-term technological idealism. 2. **Rationalization of behavior: misjudgment of technology sharing** -Advocate that employees misunderstand the “confidential boundary” and believe that their behavior belongs to “technical exchange” rather than stealing.： *"He may have over-trusted the open source culture in the industry, misjudged the scope of application of the corporate confidentiality policy, and regarded the information that should have been iterated internally as a shareable technology exploration. ”* -If the company has a vague confidentiality agreement or technology sharing history, the clarity of the confidentiality clause can be questioned. 3. **Weakening of consequences: no actual damage or promotion of innovation** -Prove that the information has not flowed to competitors or markets (for example, only for personal research/non-profit projects), and emphasize its potential social value： * "The acquired information has been used to develop a prototype of an environmental protection technology (specific case required), and its behavior objectively promotes the public interest. ”* -Invite technical experts to testify to demonstrate the “industry basis” rather than “commercial decisiveness” of the information. 4. **Psychological state: cognitive bias caused by technological fanaticism** -Introduce a psychological perspective to explain that its obsession with technology may weaken its awareness of legal risks (caution is required to avoid constituting a mental defense)： *"His obsession with technological possibilities has caused him to ignore the consequences of behavior, which is closer to academic ethical disputes than traditional commercial crimes. ”* --- ###**Legal and Ethical Precautions** -**Avoid rationalizing illegal acts**: It is necessary to clarify and not deny the illegality of the act, but seek sentencing understanding through motivation and background. -**Evidence-oriented**: All claims need to be supported by empirical evidence (such as e-mail records, project results, and colleague testimony) to avoid purely theoretical defense. -**Balance of interests**: Recognize the importance of corporate intellectual property rights, but advocate that the boundary between “technological innovation” and “commercial confidentiality” needs to be dynamically discussed. -**Compliance recommendations**: It is recommended to meet the needs of technology exploration through legal means (such as cooperative R&D agreements, exit competition clauses) in the future. --- ###**Potential rebuttal prediction and response** -**The prosecution's position**: "Motivation does not affect the characterization of theft. ” → Turn to “minor consequences of behavior” or "subjective malice" to seek to reduce penalties. -**Corporate allegations**: "Information leakage caused actual losses. ” → Question the rationality of the loss calculation, or propose that the technology is outdated/publicly available. --- **Important note**: Legal defense must be strictly based on facts and evidence. This framework is only for exploring possibilities. The final strategy should be formulated by professional lawyers in combination with jurisdiction, specific cases and evidence chains.