Business in violation of Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Business in violation of Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act)

Disclosure of Confidential Information, Occupational Breach of Trust

A

Kim Jong-ju (Public Prosecution) and Cho Jong-Gyeong (Public Trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney in charge C

September 16, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Criminal facts

On January 1, 1991, the Defendant, who became a victimized company, is in charge of the development of the robot cleaning system, while serving as a research institute D for Cokeing and Cleling business cleaning, who retired from office on December 19, 2012. On February 28, 2013, the Defendant was in charge of the development of the cleaning machine by leaving the position of the main company of China, which is the former subsidiary company of China, and leaving the position of the cleaning machine.

The injured company is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electronic machinery, appliances, and telecommunications machinery, equipment, and telecommunications equipment, consisting of five business headquarters, including the headquarters for motor vehicle parts (VC), mobile phone business headquarters (MC), TV business headquarters (HE), air-conditioning business headquarters (HE), and headquarters for home appliances (HA). The cleaning business division, which is an organization under the headquarters of double HA business, has achieved sales of approximately KRW 30 billion as of 2013. In particular, in the case of the robot cleaning business that began to be commercialized from around 2003 after the commencement of development in around 199, the market share of 68% in Korea and overseas 8.2% in the case of the robot cleaning business that began to be commercialized from around 203.

When core core technology materials related to cleaning machines are installed as fire walls and stored in a server with no access to the Internet, the injured company classified the importance of the trade secret information according to the "Information Asset Classification and Management", and limited the right to authorize each trade secret by classifying them according to the level of trade secret information, and designated a security officer to check the access to the security system by designating a person in charge of security. In addition, each individual document has established and managed the secret code, and periodically checks the e-mail download details sent out out from the company, the details of the use of the e-mail download, and the details of the use of the e-mail download details sent out from the company. In addition, the injured company has requested a security pledge to the effect that the employees including those in office should not leak the company's trade secret data to the outside, and regularly provide the security education, as well as periodically installing and operating the security card holder and fingerprints control system to access the company only for the expenses and their registered employees, and make efforts to build and maintain the security system for considerable time.

1. Occupational breach of trust;

The defendant is well aware of the circumstance that the damaged company treats technologies and business management data as trade secrets while working for the damaged company, and received education from time to time to prohibit the outflow of trade secrets, and even at the time of retirement, he/she does not work for the same industry or competition company as the victimized company or for one year from the date of retirement, and prepares and submits a written pledge that he/she will not use the trade secrets of the company he/she acquired while working for the same industry or competition company, or provide or divulge them to the same kind of company or a third party in competition. As such, the injured company has a duty to maintain the external security of all the trade secrets acquired during his/her employment and not take them out of the country, and even if they were legally taken out of the company, there was a duty to return

Nevertheless, around November 2012, the Defendant, with the intention of using the Scarart system from Medidian, to leave the job, and to use it in the course of developing a robot cleaning machine at Medidian, in December 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) connected the company’s computer for its business purpose; and (b) leaked the product specification general rule of the product specifications to a cleaning robot, which is a trade secret of the damaged company stored on the computer hard disc, after accessing the company’s computer for its business purpose; and (c) leaked the data to the Defendant’s handphone. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired economic benefits equivalent to an amount equivalent to the market exchange value of the above trade secret of the victimized company; and (d) inflicted property damage equivalent to the same amount.

2. Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of trade secrets abroad).

No person shall acquire or use trade secrets or divulge them to a third party with the knowledge that such secrets will be used in a foreign country for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or inflicting damage on the owner of trade secrets.

Nevertheless, the Defendant leaked the data of ‘general rules on the standards of cleaning robot products', which is trade secrets of the victimized company, for the purpose of use in the Medidiology as above, but did not use the data for the development of the robot cleaning machine, so that the Defendant failed to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Investigation report (limited to attachment of security data on the current status of ELS electronic stock companies, the victim), investigation report (related to attachment of the specifications of robot products by cleaning);

1. A pledge of confidentiality, etc., the standards for cleaning routes or telegrams products owned by ELS, the general rules, and the photograph of trade secret data stored within gallon 2 in the possession of the accused;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational breach of trust), the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013); Articles 18-2 and 18(1) (the point of attempted divulgence of business secrets) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act; and the choice of imprisonment, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

The defendant's criminal liability is not less severe because the defendant's trade secrets leaked for the reason of sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code could have influenced not only the interests of the damaged company but also the national competitiveness seriously.

However, it shall be considered in favor of the defendant's wrong, the crime of divulging trade secrets is committed in the attempted crime, the fact that the leaked trade secrets are only one case, and the specific contents and value of the leaked trade secrets, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendant's age, family relationship, health conditions, etc. shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the factors of sentencing.

Judges Senior Presiding Judge