[1] Whether the act of theft of another person's property containing a trade secret and the unlawful use of the trade secret constitutes an act subsequent to the larceny (negative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where a CD containing another person's trade secret was stolen for the purpose of unjust profit and used unlawfully, a crime of unlawful use of trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act is established, separate from larceny

[1] In a case where a person steals another person's property containing a trade secret useful to the company for the purpose of gaining unjust profits or causing loss to the company and uses the trade secret, the act of improper use of the trade secret shall be deemed to be an infringement of a new legal interest, and such an act of improper use does not constitute an act of ex post facto use of the thief.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a CD containing another person's trade secret was stolen for the purpose of unjust profit and the trade secret was used unlawfully, a crime of unlawful use of trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act is established, separate from larceny

[1] Article 18(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 18(2) and 19(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Busan District Court Decision 2007No4229 Decided June 5, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If a person steals another person's property containing a trade secret useful to the company for the purpose of gaining unjust profits or causing loss to the company and uses the trade secret, the act of improper use of the trade secret shall be deemed to be an infringement of new legal interests. Therefore, the aforementioned act of improper use does not constitute an act of ex post facto use of the trade secret.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's act of stealing the unit price list CD containing the three-dimensional industry's trade secret and then illegally using the trade secret contained in the CD constitutes a violation of Article 18 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ex post facto act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below acknowledged the facts in its reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted, and found that the data contained in the unit price list CD of this case is not merely a heat on the size of engine parts for vessel use, unit price, customer, etc., but also a trade secret accumulated in the Samwon Industry as a seller of engine parts for vessel use, and further, the defendant can be found to have an unlawful purpose. In light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the court below's above recognition and decision are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to trade secrets.

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 Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)