2011 Highest 545 Occupational Breach of Trust, Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Article 45 (Confidentiality of Business Secrets)

김○○ ( xxxxxx xxxxxxx ), 무직 ( 전 씨□■■■■■ 주식회사 부장 )

Residential 00 Dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul - 000 apartment 000 Dogs

00 Dong-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do-Do

Forwarding SUGE

Law Firm Han River

Attorney Kim Jong-dae in charge

April 5, 2011

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Attached evidence 24, 27, 42, 47, 51, 56, 70, 74, 86, and 87 shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

【Defendant’s Duties, etc.】

피고인은 1984. 12. 3. 경 서울 중구 00000가 에 있는 피해자인 씨□■■■■■ 주식회사에 입사하여 2007. 9. 1. 부터 에너지 혁신팀장으로, 2008. 7. 1. 경부터 공정혁신 팀장으로, 2009. 1. 1. 경부터 정제공정팀장으로 근무하였고, 2010. 6. 14. 경부터 2010 .

9. Until July, 17, the department of the fixed technology team, etc. has worked.

A victimized company is a company that manufactures and sells bio-products, such as Libers, nuclear acids, and bits, and the Defendant worked in the bio-technology field for about 25 years, and maintained and managed trade secrets, such as important business information and core technology information about core bio-products of the victimized company while working in the bio-technology field for about 25 years.

공범인 ♠○○은 2008. 1. 2. 경 전북 군산시 00동 에 있는 산업 주식회사에 입사하여 2010. 11. 30. 경까지 라이신 영업부 팀장으로 근무하였다 .

♥산업 주식회사는 라이신, 핵산, 트레오닌 등 바이오 제품을 제조하여 판매하는 회사로, 피해 회사의 경쟁 회사이고, ○○은 영업이사로서 라이신, 핵산 등 바이오제품 수출관리, 원재료 구매 등의 업무를 담당하였다 .

[Criminal Facts]

On April 2008, the Defendant was classified into the Lao Business Headquarters as the subjects of low-ranking children, and the victimized Company proceeded with the retirement program for the Defendant. On November 2008, the Defendant was classified as the subject of low-quality and the subject of low-quality evaluation at the end of the year, and rejected retirement from the victimized Company.

On January 2009, the Defendant received a regular retirement notice from the victimized Company, but requested to extend retirement for six months for the time of job seeking while demanding consolation money.

2.1. The company was restricted from internal network access due to concerns over information security accidents by the victimized company and the office was transferred to the planning team and was virtually excluded from the work.

피고인은 2009. 2. 4. 경 피해 회사에 구직할 때까지 퇴직을 연기해 달라고 요청하여 근무하던 중, 2009. 12. 경 지인인 김 을 통해 일을 하고 싶은데 일자리를 알아 봐 달라고 부탁하여, 2010. 1. 경 김♣♣으로부터 피해 회사와 경쟁 회사인 산업 주식회사에서 영업이사로 근무하는 ○○이 만나보고 싶어 한다는 연락을 받게 되었다 .

피고인은 2010. 1. 하순경 서울 강서구에 있는 강서구청 부근 ' 나이아가라 커피숍 ' 에서, ○○로부터 같이 일해보자는 제안을 받고 승낙하였고, 2010. 4. 24. 14 : 00경 서울 구로구 000에 있는 산업 주식회사 ♤♤♤♤ 사무실에서, 산업 주식회사 요☆☆☆☆ 이○ & 등으로부터 약 30분에 걸쳐 면접을 본 후 2010. 7. 1. 자로 ♥ 산업 주식회사에서 일하기로 하였다 .

피고인은 2010. 3. 18. 경 위 ' 나이아가라 커피숍 ' 옆에 있는 상호 불상 음식점에서, 소○○과 함께 ♥ 산업 주식회사 대표이사 명의로 ' 계약기간 2010. 7. 1. 부터 2013. 6 .

30. (3 years), 65 million won per annual salary, was drawn up a "labor contract".

피고인은 위와 같이 피해 회사로부터 저성과자 대상으로 분류되고 퇴직 통보를 받게 되자 피해 회사에서 영업비밀로 관리하는 바이오 제품에 대한 생산현황, 수율이나 제조원가 자료 등 중요한 경영상 정보, 원가 절감 기술, 핵산 및 라이신 생산 설비 자료 등 중요한 기술상 정보를 출력하여 반출하는 방법으로 취득하고, 그 중 일부는 경쟁회사인 ♥산업 주식회사에 근무하는 ○○에게 누설하기로 마음먹었다 .

1. He shall not acquire or use trade secrets useful for the enterprise or divulge them to a third party for the purpose of obtaining unjust gains or causing damage to the enterprise in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (related to the divulgence of trade secrets, etc.);

(a) Acquisition of trade secrets;

The Defendant printed out the documents of the “AP to strengthen customer relationship” between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from 2008 to January 2009, which included a plan for promoting marketing analysis and strengthening of relations between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s office of the Oral production technology center in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendant carried out 00 - 00 - 00 -00 - 00 - the Defendant’s office located in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

In addition, at that time, the Defendant printed a total of 8 trade secret data, such as 1st class 4 cases in external expenses of the victimized company, 4 cases in confidential data, etc., and carried them into the house without obtaining the consent of the victimized company, such as the attached list of crimes (1).

Accordingly, the defendant acquired trade secrets useful to the damaged company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the company.

(b) Divulgence of trade secrets;

On March 23, 2010: around 02: 00, the Defendant received a request from ○○ to send it by understanding “the water rate per unit other than e-mail” by means of e-mail.

On April 17, 2010: around 54, 2010, the Defendant recorded the current status of production by overseas factory product of the victimized company and the contents relating to its process, “major indexes.xls” files are e-mail (je-mail x x x 0000) in which he/she uses.

을 이용하여 ♠○○이 사용하는 이메일 ( songgic @ 0000000. net ) 로 송부하였다 .

피고인은 이를 비롯하여 2010. 4. 19. 경부터 2010. 7. 29. 경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 ( 2 ) 기재와 같이 ♠○○의 부탁에 따라 총 7회에 걸쳐 피해 회사의 자료를 ♠○○에게 이메일로 송부해 주었다 .

Among the data sent by the defendant, the manufacturing cost of the victimized company, technical index, refining system, type of facility and working method, by-products, the production volume and the exporting country of the Indonesian ethyl price, etc. constitute trade secrets related to production, and the total cost data, including the sales cost and logistics cost, constitute trade secrets related to the business, all seven cases were designated as "confidential, the highest level of security level" in the victimized company, and their access except the related persons, are important trade secrets.

이로써, 피고인은 부정한 이익을 얻거나 기업에 손해를 입힐 목적으로 피해 회사에 유용한 영업비밀을 ♠○○에게 누설하였다 .

2. Occupational breach of trust;

피고인은 피해 회사의 직원으로서 피해 회사가 영업비밀로 지정하여 관리하는 자료를 경쟁회사인 ♥산업 주식회사에 근무하는 ○○에게 유출하여서는 아니된다 .

그럼에도 피고인은 2010. 4. 19. 경부터 2010. 7. 29. 경까지 정보보호 서약 및 보안규칙을 준수하여야 할 업무상 임무에 위배하여 ○○의 부탁에 따라 별지 범죄일람표 ( 2 ) 기재와 같이 총 7회에 걸쳐 피해 회사의 영업비밀 자료를 ♠○○에게 누설하였다 .

이로써, 피고인은 ○○과 공모하여, 피해 회사에서 약 3년간 불상의 금액을 투입하여 개발한 라이신 및 쓰레오닌 관련 자료를 누설함으로써 ♠○○에게 불상의 금액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고, 피해 회사에 동액 상당의 재산상 손해를 가하였다 .

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. ♠○○에 대한 경찰피의자신문조서

1. ▶소, ②▲▲, ♥♡♡에 대한 각 경찰진술조서

1. ♥▦▦의 진술서

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. Each investigation report;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Each Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (acquisition and leakage of trade secrets, each choice of imprisonment), Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (the point of occupational breach of trust, and choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to Divulgence of Trade Secrets and Breach of Trust in the course of business)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

The crime of this case in the reason for sentencing is that the defendant disclosed the trade secrets developed by using considerable money for a long period of time to the employees of the competition company that caused the damage, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. However, the defendant's application for the punishment against the defendant on the ground that the competition company does not seem to have actually obtained the trade secrets and actually used them, the defendant contributed to the development of the injured company's bio-business while working for 25 years in the process of this trial, and the defendant submitted a written application for the punishment against the defendant on the ground that he contributed to the development of the injured company's bio-business while working for 25 years, and the defendant was notified of the intention of recommendation from the victimized company who has worked for a long period of time, the defendant was deprived of the crime of this case, and the defendant was found to have been deprived of his previous criminal punishment,

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jeong Jin-won