[2] The case holding that where a member retires from the company and brings about data containing the composite ratio of raw materials, manufacturing process, quality verification of prototypes, and various experimental results for improving manufacturing technology, such data constitutes larceny, and the above data constitutes trade secret under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] The case holding that where a member retires from a company, materials stating the composite ratio of parts and raw materials and manufacturing process and the materials stating the results revealed through various experiments for the purpose of confirming the quality of prototypes or improving manufacturing technology, they constitute larceny, and the above materials constitute trade secrets under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004)

1. As to larceny

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below recognized that each document prepared by the employees of the victimized company in order to achieve the purpose of the victimized company was possessed by the victimized company and permitted the possession and use of the damaged company to the extent that it was used to achieve the purpose of the victimized company, and that the victimized company did not transfer its ownership to the defendant, and that the above act of the defendant constitutes larceny. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the ownership of the property which is the object of larceny.

2. On the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004) means a method of production, method of sale, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which is maintained and managed as secret by considerable effort (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do4704, Mar. 12, 199, etc.). The term "information has an independent economic value" means that the holder of the information can benefit from competition with the competitor through the use of the information, or requires considerable expenses or effort for the acquisition or development of the information, and if any information meets all the above requirements, the above information has not reached the completed stage to the extent that it can immediately be used for business activities, or has not been assisted by a third party, or if only a person has been aware of the information through a test, it does not constitute an obstacle to the above information.

The court below acknowledged that some of the materials in its decision were prepared based on the results of the research and experiment conducted by the victimized company, and specifically stated parts for the manufacture of white luminous emitting MaD, the combination ratio of raw materials, and manufacturing process, and the remainder is the materials which the victimized company confirmed the quality of a prototype or recorded the results of various experiments for the improvement of manufacturing technology. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below determined that all of the above materials are trade secrets. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on trade secrets under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)