All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground of appeal, "business secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act means the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public, have independent economic value, and have been maintained in secret by considerable efforts.

In this context, “no disclosure is made” refers to a situation in which it is possible to recognize that the information is kept confidential because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as a publication, etc., and thus it is ordinarily impossible to obtain such information without going through a holder. “An independent economic value” means that the owner of the information can obtain competition benefits from competitors or requires considerable expenses or effort to acquire or develop the information, and “the information is kept confidential by considerable effort” refers to a situation in which it is possible to recognize that the information is kept in secret objectively, such as where the information is displayed or notified so that it can be perceived as confidential, and where the information is limited to the persons who have access to the information or the persons who have access to the information, or where the persons who have access to the information are subject to confidentiality obligation to keep confidential information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7916, Jul. 9, 2009).

In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendants of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the divulgence of trade secrets, etc.) was affirmed as it is.

The aforementioned legal principles and records are recorded.