beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. Defendant A (De facto Mistake) 1) The victim was operated by the victim of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Disclosure of Business Secrets, etc.) due to the acquisition of trade secrets (hereinafter “victim”)
A) Employees’ computers were connected to a shared network, so they could freely access and use a business file. The file, such as the E-China Factory Hospital Hospital Hospital Hospital Hospital Hospitalization file, etc. (hereinafter “instant file”).
In full view of the fact that the information on unit prices, etc. stated in the instant file is recorded in another file without a password, and is not managed as confidential; the procurement items, unit prices, distribution expenses, and transaction parties stated in the instant file are useful only for the victim; Defendant A cannot use them; and it cannot be reduced due to the fact that the aforementioned information was known to the victim; thus, the unit prices, etc. contained in the instant file are not information having independent economic value; thus, it cannot be seen as information readily obtained through the Internet site like M in China or the Chinese wholesale company, and it cannot be seen as information not known. Accordingly, the lower court convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, is not a trade secret, and thus, Defendant A cannot be said to have suffered any benefit or damage to Defendant A.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous and erroneous.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B’s trade secret acquisition, thereby in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets, etc.) and occupational breach of trust, the Defendants jointly operated “G” and Defendant A.