When defending employees accused of stealing confidential company information, describe behavior as an interest in technological innovation that requires careful and strategic construction of arguments while avoiding rationalizing violations. The following is the possible defense framework： --- ### **1. Emphasize the non-malice of motivation** -**Core point of view**: The behavior of the parties stems from a pure passion for technological progress, not personal interests or the intention to harm the company. -*****： -The parties have long shown an obsession with technological innovation, such as personal projects, public speeches or academic participation, to prove the authenticity of their interests. -The purpose of obtaining information is to understand technical principles (such as code architecture, algorithm design), not for commercial competition or sale. -You can cite the testimony or historical records of colleagues to prove that they have made suggestions for improvement or tried to obtain information through legal channels but have not received a response. --- ### **2. Distinguish between "crossing the border” and "crime”** -**Core point of view**: Although the behavior violates company policies, it is in line with the common “knowledge sharing” culture in the technology community. -*****： -In the field of technology where open source culture prevails, the parties may have blurred the boundaries between proprietary information and open innovation (for example, mistakenly thinking that information can be used for experimental research). -If the information has not been actually leaked or caused damage, it can be argued that its behavior is closer to “internal unauthorized access” rather than “theft”. --- ### **3. Positive consequences of technological exploration** -**Core point of view**: The behavior of the parties may objectively bring potential value to the company or the technical field. -*****： -The technical improvement plan (if any) proposed by it through the analysis of information can prove the creativity of its intention. -Expert testimony stating that relevant technologies may promote industry progress if they are disclosed (such as public safety or ethical issues). --- ### **4. Indirect impact of corporate responsibility** -**Auxiliary argument**: The company's failure to provide sufficient channels for technical exploration indirectly prompted the parties to adopt unconventional methods. -*****： -The company lacks internal innovation mechanisms (such as hackathons, R&D forums), which leads to frustration among employees. -The parties concerned may believe that information barriers hinder technological breakthroughs, and the company has not clearly communicated the boundaries of confidentiality. --- ### **5. Narrative of mitigating responsibility** -**Strategy**: Characterize behavior as an “overzealous mistake” rather than a "crime”. -**Key expressions**： - “The parties' love for technology overwhelms their understanding of rules. This is a collision of idealism and system. ” -“His behavior is more like a 'mad researcher’ than a criminal of deliberate destruction. ” --- ###**Precautions**： 1. **Avoid admitting illegal facts**: You need to confirm with the legal team whether to adopt a "motivational defense” or directly deny the charges. 2. **Evidence support**: Specific materials (such as emails, notes) are required to prove their technical research motivation. 3. **Cultural differences**: In jurisdictions that value the protection of intellectual property rights, such defenses need to be more cautious. --- Ultimately, this defense aims to win the sympathy of the jury or judge, redefine the case from “commercial espionage” to “the fault of a technical idealist”, and may lead to lighter penalties or alternative solutions (such as community services, technical cooperation agreements). However, the strategy needs to be adjusted in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case.