The meaning of "trade secret not known publicly", "it has an independent economic value," and "it shall be kept confidential by considerable effort," among the requirements for "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610 Decided September 23, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1693) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3435 Decided July 10, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1212) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9022 Decided April 9, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 680) Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12528 Decided July 14, 201 (Gong201Ha, 1585)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm LLC (LLC, Attorneys Yoon Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2010No4486 decided December 21, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the acquisition of trade secrets regarding files Nos. 1, 2, and 14 through 17 of the [Attachment 1] of the court of first instance

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, around May 2009, the defendant obtained the victim company's trade secret by obtaining from the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 2 corporation (hereinafter "victim company") the files Nos. 1, 2, and 14 through 17 of the first instance court [crime List] No. 1, 2 (hereinafter "the files No. 1 and 2") containing technical data related to the manufacture of pumps products from the non-indicted 2 corporation (hereinafter "victim company"), and transferring the file to the defendant's Nowonbuk computer. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged against the defendant on the ground that the defendant obtained the files No. 1, 2, and 14 through 17 of the victim company's company.

B. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s file No. 1 and No. 2 were identical or similar to the victim’s file No. 7 file that was made by Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 4, and Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 4 were identical or similar to the victim’s file No. 7 file that was made by Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2, and that Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2 were identical or similar to the victim’s file No. 1 and Nonindicted Company 4 were identical or similar to the victim’s file No. 7, and that Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2 were not identical or similar to the victim’s file No. 1 and Nonindicted Company 3, and that it was difficult to conclude that Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 4 were identical or similar to the victim’s file no. 1 and No. 2 were identical to the victim’s file that were made by Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 3.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges. The judgment of the court below contains an error of law by exceeding the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

2. As to the trade secret of the file Nos. 3 to 13

The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act means any production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public, and are maintained as secret by considerable effort. Here, "non-known" refers to any information that cannot be obtained through a holder unless it is known to many and unspecified persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004, etc.) because the information is not known to the public, such as publications, etc., and "the person has independent economic value" means that the holder of the information can benefit from competition against competitors through the use of the information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9022, Apr. 9, 2009).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act regarding files No. 3 through 13, on the ground that the files No. 3 through 13 are materials relating to pumps manufacturing files and drawings files, which are naturally installed in semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and are economically useful and are not disclosed to the outside of the victim company's employees, and the victim company is not objectively disclosed information except for the part of the victim company's employees, and thus objectively maintains and manages such information and thus constitutes the trade secret of the victim company, and thus constitutes the trade secret of the victim company. In so doing, the lower court's determination is justifiable in

3. As to special larceny and intrusion upon a structure

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of each crime in the judgment of the court of first instance and the court below on the crime of special larceny and intrusion of structure. In light of the records, the selection of evidence and the fact-finding in the court of first instance shall be justified in accordance with the reasonable free evaluation of evidence by the judge of the fact-finding court, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence

4. Scope of reversal

On the other hand, as long as the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the file parts Nos. 1, 2, and 14 through 17 among the facts charged of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act cannot be maintained illegally for the same reason as seen earlier, the part of the facts charged as to the remaining file parts in relation to such crime cannot be exempted. In addition, since the part concerning the crime of special larceny and building intrusion which the court below found the defendant guilty was sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)