Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant 1 is not guilty of Defendant 1’s occupational breach of trust and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Disclosure, etc. of Trade Secrets) on July 16, 2013.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 is dismissed.

A. Defendant 1

(1) As to the erroneous determination of facts (as to the conviction in the original judgment)

(a) Business principal assets;

On July 16, 2013, the materials that the Defendant sent to Nonindicted Company 8 and Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 7”) affiliated with Nonindicted Company 7 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 7”) are merely the materials that were contained in “(the file name 2 omitted)” and the materials that were provided by the victim company from the customer company that produces the transformation machine are rarely input and do not constitute a major business asset of the victim company.

(B) Intention of occupational breach of trust

The defendant's transmission of the above file was made as part of the performance of duties upon the request of the non-indicted 7 company that received equipment from the victimized company at the time of delivery.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) As to Defendant 1

(A) On July 16, 2013, violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) by divulgence of trade secrets

The data contained in the Defendant’s transmission (name 2 omitted) to Nonindicted Company 7 constitutes a trade secret of the victimized Company.

(B) From April 2014 to May 2014, the violation of the law due to the acquisition of trade secrets, and the violation of occupational duties.

The materials contained in each file listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the table”) constitutes trade secrets of the victimized company. In accordance with a security pledge or the principle of good faith prepared by the Defendant at the time of his/her employment, the Defendant bears the duty not to leak the above materials even after his/her retirement, and at least he/she is returned from the victimized company on April 201 to May 2014, the Defendant recognizes the status of “a person who administers another’s business” pursuant to a written pledge of prohibition of removal prepared by the victimized company.

(C) Violation of law due to the divulgence of each trade secret on January 3, 2015 and January 28, 2015

Data contained in each file listed in Table 2 constitutes trade secrets of the victimized company.

(D) Violation of law due to the use of each trade secret on July 23, 2014 and January 27, 2015

Materials contained in each file listed in Table 3 constitute trade secrets of the victimized company.

(E) On March 5, 2015, the violation of law due to the acquisition of trade secrets

The materials contained in "(filing name omitted)" are trade secrets of the victimized company.

(2) As to Defendant 2

The defendant's (name 2 omitted) forwarded by the defendant 1 constitutes trade secrets of the victimized company.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Summary of the facts charged

Since the Defendant was in office as a technical business director for the victimized company, the Defendant did not leak the trade secrets of the victimized company to another company, and there was a duty to prevent another company from using them without the consent of the victimized company.

Nevertheless, at the damaged office on July 16, 2013, the Defendant sent the Defendant’s e-mail (e-mail address 1 omitted) files to Nonindicted 8 (e-mail address 2 omitted) and Defendant 2 (e-mail address 3 omitted), a trade secret of the victimized company, “(the file name 2 omitted (the files name of the victimized company stating the ○○ Motor Vehicle 6 short speed, the e-mail speed, the value of the creation of both products such as noise, etc.)” (the files name 2 omitted), which is the trade secret of the victimized company.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the market value of the above trade secret from the non-indicted 8, etc., and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount from the damaged company.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court convicted the Defendant of the material contained in (name 2 omitted) on the ground that the material was not trade secrets of the victimized company, but constitutes a major business asset.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) Major business assets:

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the materials contained in the above file constitute a major business asset of the victimized company.

① In the above file, the test items and the set value (the upper limit and lower value to be determined as a good) are included in the test items and the quantity to examine whether the damage company caused by the ○○ Motor Vehicle manufacturing business operator, which is a customer company, has changed the speed of the ○○ Motor Vehicle and the change of company Nonindicted Company 9 in Australia.

② The value of the items and samples to be inspected as above is the optimal when the damaged company received the inspection items and the inspection reference value from the manufacturer who is a customer, through a large number of tests and errors through consultation with the customer. If the damaged company has considerable time and effort to make such items and samples, and if there is no sufficient experience, it is impossible to set them appropriately.

3. The injured company manages the customer's inspection value as confidential, and such data cannot be obtained without going through the customer of the victimized company or the victimized company.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) Intention of occupational breach of trust

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances recognized by the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the defendant's intention of occupational breach of trust.

① The Defendant consistently asserts that Nonindicted Co. 7, a customer of the victimized Company, requested the submission of data on the value of the establishment of another transmission company in order to resolve any problem related to the cost of transmission that the victimized Company supplied by Nonindicted Co. 7, the customer of the victimized Company.

② On April 13, 2012, the victimized Company entered into a contract with Nonindicted Company 7 for the supply of inspection equipment for the rapid production of equipment, and around July 2013, Nonindicted Company 7 received a request from Nonindicted Company 7 to resolve various problems with respect to equipment supplied after the delivery of equipment. Nonindicted Company 10, which belongs to Nonindicted Company 7, sent e-mail to the Defendant, who is the team leader of the affected Company’s business sector, on July 15, 2013, and made a request to “if there is any problem in the inspection value, it would be possible to suggest the establishment value of our test procedure? If there is any data on the establishment value of another company? If there is any other company? Defendant 2 also Defendant 1, who belongs to Nonindicted Company 7, sent the e-mail to the Defendant to Nonindicted Company 7, which is necessary to assist Nonindicted Company 7 in selling the equipment. Whether it is possible to provide data from △△ or any other variable manufacturing company?” Accordingly, the Defendant sent the above file to the Defendant on July 16, 2013.

③ On March 22, 2011, Nonindicted Co. 11 sent Nonindicted Co. 7’s e-mail to Nonindicted Co. 5, who is an employee of the victimized Co. 7, stating that “The demand of Nonindicted Co. 7 was made before the victimized Co. 7, such as the ○○○6AT test pattern that was provided as sampling by the victimized Co. 7.” In addition, Nonindicted Co. 4, the representative of the victimized Co. 4, on December 18, 2013, sent the said e-mail to the recipient of the e-mail requesting part of the inspection value of ○○ and △△△△△△, which was partially requested by Nonindicted Co. 10, who was affiliated with Nonindicted Co. 7, and the Defendant appears to have provided the data on the inspection value at the request of the customer, and the possibility that the Defendant sent the file to Nonindicted Co. 7, 2013, which could not be ruled out as a contractual performance of the obligation to damage Nonindicted Co. 7.

④ The Defendant did not receive any consideration from Nonindicted Company 7 in relation to the provision of the said file.

⑤ Even after the delivery of the foregoing file, the relationship between the victimized company and Nonindicted Company 7 was maintained entirely, and the additional contract was concluded.

6. Nonindicted Co. 7 is not a manufacturer of inspection equipment for speed change between the victimized company and competition-related parties, but a manufacturer of speed change as a customer of the victimized company.

7) The e-mail sent by the Defendant to the above file refers to the e-mail that “if the crime is discovered, the Defendant will lead to the reduction of the house” means that the Defendant should not become aware of the fact of providing data by another customer, who inspected the transition at the above level of inspection, and by Nonindicted Company 9, Australia.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. As to Defendant 1

(1) On July 16, 2013, the violation of the law due to the divulgence of trade secrets

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court rendered a judgment not guilty on the ground that (the file name 2 omitted) is a major business asset, but is not a trade secret.

(B) Judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as seen in Section 2-C(2) above, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the victimized company.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

(2) The remaining violation of each law

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court rendered a judgment not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the materials contained in the files and (the file name omitted) files listed in the table 1 through 3, except (the file name omitted) and (the file was maintained and managed as trade secrets.

(B) Judgment of the court below

1) The validity of a search and seizure warrant dated March 26, 2015

The warrant of search and seizure dated March 26, 2015 (which is 289 through 295 of the investigation record) includes the name and name of the suspect, the name of the crime, the articles to be seized, the place, body, goods to be searched, the date of issuance, the date of issuance, the term of validity, and the reason for the search and seizure, and the purport that the warrant shall not be executed after the lapse of such period, and the warrant shall be returned, and the judge who has issued the warrant shall make an additional statement on one hand, stating that “this warrant may be executed before or after sunrise,” and affix a seal on the corresponding part, and deliver it. Thus, the above warrant of search and seizure is issued at the genuine will of the judge, although the signature and seal of the judge is omitted. Considering that the inherent nature of the warrant is reserved to a judge who is guaranteed the independence of human and material resources, other than the party to the investigation (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ga36, Jun. 27, 20120).

(ii) trade secrets;

Trade secrets referred to in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act are not generally known and have independent economic value, and information refers to technical or managerial information useful for production methods, sales methods, and other business activities maintained and managed as confidential by considerable effort. The meaning of "information" is that a holder of information can benefit from competition to a competitor through the use of such information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed to acquire or develop such information. In addition, in determining whether a person satisfies the requirements for trade secrets and whether a trade secret has been specified as a trade secret, various circumstances such as the period of service, duties, job, possibility of access to trade secrets, contents and nature of work in charge after retirement, as well as the details of the trade secret claimed by the employer should be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do250, Jul. 9, 2009).

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the materials contained in the remaining files constitute trade secrets of the victimized company in terms of economic usefulness, non-officiality, and confidentiality.

① The injured company is a manufacturer of inspection equipment that determines the performance and stability of the speed change of motor vehicles, and the company possessing the technology of manufacturing the speed change inspection equipment is only a few enterprises in Germany, the United States, and Japan, and the injured company is now in the Republic of Korea. The injured company was awarded a reward to the person of distinguished service to the development of excellent capital goods by the Korea Institute of Machinery and Industry Promotion in 2009. The injured company has continuously developed the speed change inspection equipment for a long period of time, and has accumulated technical know-how about the manufacture of the speed change inspection equipment, and the competitors have spent considerable time and effort to normally acquire the aforementioned technology.

② Nonindicted 12 Limited Liability Company located in China (hereinafter “Nonindicted 12”) produced and sold automobile engine inspection equipment in China, and Nonindicted 13 Limited Liability Company, a subsidiary company of Nonindicted 12, was established on May 9, 2014 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 13 Corporation”). Nonindicted 13 Company was awarded a successful bid by participating in a bid for an alternative inspection equipment conducted by Nonindicted 14 Limited Liability Company in China on October 2014.

③ On December 17, 2013, the Defendant received the e-mail from the representative of Nonindicted 12, 2013, that “I think I think I would be a good thing to cooperate with our company. I wish to see I wish to see.” On December 19, 2013, the Defendant sent the e-mail to the representative of Nonindicted 12, who “I am together with Nonindicted 13 Corporation from February 10, 2014 to December 13, 2013. I will end my best to ensure successful commencement and continuous prosperity. I will am e-mail that I am confidential. I will keep my departure from employment until the end of January 2014.”

④ Among the employees of the victimized company, those who are allowed to access the remaining files, such as design drawings for the manufacture of transmission equipment, etc., are limited to the staff of the victimized company, and in order to access the said files, the ID and password granted by the victimized company was entered. On March 5, 2015, Nonindicted Party 2 sent to the Defendant the file, which is a part of the transmission equipment inspection equipment, to the Defendant, was unable to access the design drawing because he was not in charge of the design. Although he was a director, he was in need of the drawing, the Defendant also stated at the prosecution that “In order to access the server, he was required to input the ID and the device.” In order to access the server, Nonindicted Party 2 stated that there was no need to explain the need for access authority, and that there was no need to obtain access authority from the pertinent department.”

⑤ In mind that the Defendant would leave his job to a competitive company, the Defendant stored each file on the 1st page containing technical information related to the production of the equipment for inspection at the speed of the victimized company. However, upon the Defendant’s retirement, the victimized company requested the return of the said external cover upon the Defendant’s request, and requested the victimized company to return the external cover that it used for a long time. The victimized company was returned after receiving a written promise of withdrawal from the Defendant that the said external cover was circulated several times, and that the Defendant would not divulge the trade secret from the Defendant. The Defendant restored the data through a specialized company located in the Chinese computer restoration company located in the damaged company. In this regard, the Prosecutor stated to the effect that “the Defendant returned the external cover promptly with the intent of returning the external cover back and restoring it.”

6) After the Defendant retired from his job to Nonindicted 13, the Defendant sent and divulged each file recorded in Table 2 to the staff in charge of design for the transition period of Nonindicted 13 and the Vienna, and Nonindicted 13 used the drawings of the victimized company as described in Table 3 at the time of Nonindicted 13’s participation in the tender for the inspection equipment for the transition period of time.

7) On May 2014, Nonindicted 13, which was established almost at the same time with the Defendant’s entry, was able to receive successful and successful bid in manufacturing variable inspection equipment at least five months from the Defendant using technical information related to the manufacture of variable inspection equipment provided by the victimized Company.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is justified.

(3) From April 201 to May 2014, 2014, occupational breach of trust.

On January 24, 2014, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a position of a person who administers the affairs of the victimized company even after his/her retirement.

According to the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as argued by the prosecutor.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to Defendant 2

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the records as stated in the preceding 2-C. (2), it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the victimized company.

At the time of acquisition (name 2 omitted), the Defendant was in charge of verifying whether there was no problem when he installed a changeer manufactured by Nonindicted Co. 7 in a vehicle. Nonindicted Co. 7 was receiving technical support from Nonindicted Co. 15 in the UK, and there was an opinion with Nonindicted Co. 15 in relation to the quantity of goods classified according to the changeer test equipment supplied by the victimized Co. 7. Nonindicted Co. 10, who works for Nonindicted Co. 7, and the Defendant, may have a problem in the value of the installation of the test equipment supplied by the victimized Co. 7, on the premise that there was a problem in the value of the installation of the test equipment supplied by the victimized Co. 10 and the Defendant

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 2 is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Defendant 1's assertion of misconception of facts is with merit. Of the acquittal portion of the judgment below, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the remainder except for the part concerning Defendant 1's violation of the Act on July 16, 2013 and the part concerning occupational breach of trust around April through May 2014 is with merit. Each of the above parts is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is related to the point of occupational breach of trust as of July 16, 2013 and the point of violation of the Act as of April 16, 2014 through May 24, 2014 through Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Violation of the Act due to the acquisition of trade secrets from April 2014 to May 2014;

On January 24, 2014, the Defendant returned all the external hives, etc. used for business purposes while withdrawing the damaged company, but returned the external hives returned from the victimized company around April 2014 through May 2014, 2014, referring to the business affairs of the victimized company’s use of the trade secret in the future, and referring to the business affairs of the victimized company’s use of the trade secret in the future, and referring to the business affairs of the victimized company’s use of the trade secret, and referring the trade secret of the victimized company to cause damage to the victimized company.” (The file name 3 omitted) “The damaged company’s trade secret (the file name 3 omitted)”, which is a trade secret of the victimized company, at the time of the injured company’s injury to China, was restored by the files, such as the valve hives file, made by the victimized company from △△ in China

2. Violation of the Act due to the divulgence of trade secrets on January 3, 2015 and January 28, 2015;

On January 3, 2015, at the office of Non-Indicted 13 at the time of injury to China ( Address 2 omitted) on January 3, 2015, the Defendant divulged the trade secret of the victimized company with the knowledge that the trade secret was to be used in a foreign country with the intent to obtain unjust profits or to inflict damage on the victimized company, as shown in Table 2, to Non-Indicted 16 (No. 4 omitted from e-mail address 1 omitted) as the Defendant’s e-mail (e-mail address 1 omitted).

3. Violation of the Act due to the use of trade secrets on July 23, 2014 and January 27, 2015;

On July 23, 2014, the Defendant made a technical proposal to be sent to Nonindicted Co. 13’s office for receiving orders from Nonindicted Co. 13 in order to Nonindicted Co. 13, the Defendant used the trade secret of the victimized company, knowing that the trade secret was to be used in a foreign country with the knowledge that the trade secret was to be used in a foreign country for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the victimized company, as described in the attached Table 3, including the inclusion of Nonindicted Co. 13’s trade secret “(name 5 omitted)” (the production drawing of inspection equipment) as the drawings produced by Nonindicted Co. 13.

4. Violation of law by acquiring trade secrets on March 5, 2015;

On March 5, 2015, the Defendant acquired the trade secret of the victimized Company by e-mail from Nonindicted 2, who was an employee of the victimized Company, for the purpose of reference in manufacturing the transmission equipment, with the knowledge that the trade secret will be used in a foreign country for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the victimized Company by receiving “(the file name omitted (Sfinpin drawing file, which is a part of inspection equipment)” (the file), which is the trade secret of the victimized Company.

1. The suspect examination record against Defendant 1 who was prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement of Nonindicted 3 prepared by the police

1. An interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 2 prepared by the police

1. The current status of registration of Nonindicted Co. 13, the current status of registration of Nonindicted Co. 12, and the bidding report of △△ Motor.

1. e-mail details;

1. Data concerning criminal facts:

Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the acquisition of trade secrets), Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the occupation of using trade secrets), Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the occupation of divulging trade secrets), and each choice of imprisonment, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and other various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

A. Occupational Breach of Trust and Violation of Law (Leakage, etc. of Trade Secrets) on July 16, 2013

Since the Defendant was in office as a technical business director for the victimized company, the Defendant did not leak the trade secrets of the victimized company to another company, and there was a duty to prevent another company from using them without the consent of the victimized company.

Nevertheless, at the victim company office on July 16, 2013, the Defendant sent the file to Nonindicted 8 (2 omitted) and Defendant 2 (3 omitted) the trade secret of the victim company (the files name of the victim company: ○ Motor Vehicle 6 short speed, Australia 9 change speed, Korea △△△△ 6 short speed, and data containing the value of the creation of both products, such as e-mail change and speed of response, and noise, on the part of the Defendant’s e-mail (e-mail address 1 omitted) using the Defendant’s e-mail (e-mail address 1 omitted).

As a result, the defendant knew that the trade secret will be used in a foreign country for the purpose of obtaining improper profits or causing damage to the owner of the trade secret, and at the same time, he disclosed the trade secret to the third party to obtain economic benefits equivalent to the market value of the above trade secret to the non-indicted 8 et al., and suffered economic damage equivalent to

B. Occupational breach of trust between April 2014 and May 2014

The Defendant signed a security management provision to the effect that the Defendant did not disclose trade secrets while employed by the victimized company and did not find employment in the same company for three years after his/her retirement, as well as that he/she signed a written oath that he/she does not divulge trade secrets while leaving the victimized company around January 24, 2014, and thus, there was a duty to not remove trade secrets from the outside upon retirement of the victimized company in accordance with the above security management regulations and the obligations under the said written oath.

Nevertheless, even if the Defendant returned all the external humds, etc. used for the purpose of business at the time of leaving the damaged company on January 24, 2014, the Defendant returned the external humds returned from the victimized company on or around April 2014 to May 2014, “In order to obtain unjust profits or to provide the said trade secret to the competitor of the victimized company, the Defendant acquired the trade secret of the victimized company by using the trade secret in the future” (the file name 3 omitted), “(the file name 3 omitted), a trade secret of the victimized company, at the time of the injured company in China,” which is a trade secret of the victimized company at the lower time below that of the injured company in China, for the purpose of causing damage to the victimized company by taking advantage of the trade secret of the victimized company in the future, or by copying and storing the file in the Defendant’s humd humdroid.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired the market value of the above trade secret and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount from the damaged company.

2. Determination

A. Occupational Breach of Trust and Violation of Law (Leakage, etc. of Trade Secrets) on July 16, 2013

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as stated in the preceding 2-C. and 3-A. (1), and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Occupational breach of trust between April 2014 and May 2014

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the preceding 3-A(3), and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the facts charged are found guilty of a violation of the Act (such as the divulgence of trade secrets, etc.) around April through May 2014, 2014, which is related to such a crime, a separate verdict of

[Attachment]

Judges Song Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)