[1] The case holding that an explanatory note of the U.S. machinery for mobile phones, which was provided for the purpose of distributing customers and part of which was disclosed on the website, does not constitute trade secrets under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] The number of crimes in a case where a variety of trade secrets are acquired as a single act on the same opportunity (=one crime)

[1] The case holding that it does not constitute trade secret under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007), since a description of the wafers for mobile phones, which was provided for the distribution of customers and part of which was disclosed on the website, is publicly known or cannot be deemed to have an independent economic value

[2] The act of acquiring multiple trade secrets as a single act on the same opportunity shall be assessed as a crime of violating Article 18(2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007).

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007) / [2] Article 18 (2) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 37 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3435 Decided July 10, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Kim Sung-sung et al.

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006No617 decided Nov. 28, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the acquisition of electronic documents Nos. 1 and 1 of the annexed crime sight table in the judgment below

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding facts as stated in its judgment, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, since it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, in light of various circumstances acknowledged by the record, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason in misunderstanding that the defendant's above act was not a crime under the law. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. As to the acquisition of document Nos. 9 in the annexed list of crimes in the judgment below

The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act means any technical or operational information useful for any production method, sale method, and other business activities, which is kept confidential by considerable effort. The term "not known to the public" refers to any information that is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as where it is impossible to obtain such information without passing through a holder, because it is not known to the general public, and "the holder of such information has an independent economic value" means that the holder of such information can obtain competitive benefits from the use of such information, or requires considerable expenses or efforts to acquire or develop such information (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3435, Jul. 10, 2008, etc.).

However, in light of the records, the document Nos. 9 of the judgment of the court below is merely a brief statement about the structure and characteristics of the U.S., rather than that the document contains technical information about the U.S., or information that the holder can gain competitive interests, and thus, in light of the above legal principles, the document is not a trade secret since it can not be deemed as known or independent economic value because it can not be deemed as a trade secret because the document is a description of "Embed Gar", which is a mobile phone machine for the use of mobile phones developed by Nonindicted Co. 2.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to trade secrets and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Scope of reversal

Meanwhile, as in the instant case, if the Defendant acquired multiple trade secrets as a single act on the same opportunity, it should be evaluated as a single crime, and as long as the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of part of the facts charged in the instant case cannot be maintained unlawfully and as it is for the same reason, the remainder of the facts charged in relation to the crime cannot be reversed.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)