When defending a client accused of illegally obtaining confidential data, there are several strategies that can be used to argue that his actions were actually intended to test the soundness of the company's protection of sensitive information: 1. **Reasonableness of Motive**: Emphasize that the client's motivation for the relevant actions was out of concern and responsibility for information security, rather than out of malice or personal gain. For example, you can point out that the client hopes to reveal potential security vulnerabilities through these actions, thereby helping the company improve security. 2. **Legality and Transparency**: If the client had raised concerns about information security with the company before obtaining the data and sought improvement measures, but did not receive sufficient attention, you can point out that the client's actions were a positive response to the company's security attitude. This shows that the client's actions were made with good intentions to protect the interests of the company and its customers. 3. **Industry Practice**: You can cite examples of testing and evaluations conducted by other companies in the industry in similar contexts to show that conducting information protection testing in specific circumstances is an industry-wide accepted practice and is not an abnormal behavior. This helps to put the client's actions in a broader context. 4. **Professional qualifications**: If the client has relevant professional background or qualifications, you can emphasize that they have the ability and rationality to conduct security testing, thereby further proving the professionalism and necessity of the client's behavior. 5. **Positive impact of results**: If the client's behavior ultimately leads to the discovery of the company's security vulnerabilities and prompts the company to take necessary security measures, it can be used as a key point of argument to show that the client's behavior is actually beneficial and has positive results. 6. **Contrast between intentions and consequences**: Emphasize the difference between the client's intentions and actual consequences, indicating that the client did not intend to cause damage or leak information, but hoped to improve the company's security protocols through legal means. Through the above arguments, you can effectively defend the client, explain the motivation and purpose of his behavior, and strive to reduce or withdraw the relevant charges.