[1] The meaning of "trade secret" among the requirements for "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] The case holding that the company's business files related to the company's business acquired and used by employees cannot be deemed as information preserved as confidential by considerable effort, and thus does not constitute "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[1] The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007) means a state where it is recognizable that the information is maintained and managed objectively as secret, such as making or notifying a person who has access to the information or a method of access, or imposing a person who has access to the information, on him/her a duty to maintain confidentiality.

[2] In a case where a company’s file related to the business affairs acquired and used by its employees is designated as a custodian, or there was no security devices and security management regulations, and stored in a file server without any classification or indication of confidential or secret materials, etc., and could have been freely accessed, perused, and copied within the company, the case holding that such file cannot be deemed as a information maintained in secret by considerable effort, and thus, it does not constitute a trade secret under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007)

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007)

Defendant 1 and five others

Prosecutor

Law Firm Mad Cow, Attorneys Choi Han-ro et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2006No100 Decided April 8, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal alleging the misapprehension of legal principles of the original judgment

The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767 of Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter the same) means any production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which have been maintained secret by considerable effort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4704, Mar. 12, 199). Here, the term "non-publicly known information" means that information cannot be generally obtained without involving its holders because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as publications, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004); the term "independent economic value" means that a holder of such information has access to, or is objectively able to obtain, secret access to, or manage the information from, the person subject to the obligation to use such information.

The lower court determined that: (a) among the files of this case where the Defendants were indicted for unlawful acquisition and use by the Epician Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Epician”) on the basis of its adopted evidence, the files of this case are insufficient to be deemed to include technologies that have been generally well-known and differentiated from technologies or information having independent economic value; (b) there is no evidence to deem the files of this case as research or production by Epician; (c) the remaining parts of the files of this case cannot be deemed as either the contents of the published report or academic conference or information having independent economic value; and (d) when part of the Defendants were employed by Epician, the lower court prepared a general trade secret pledge with the content of “occupational secrets and other important matters,” but it is difficult for Epician to freely view that the files of this case did not constitute confidential or confidential information, as well as any material information that could not be disclosed to the members of Epician, or that they did not have any specific information on the computer network or confidential information.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles as to trade secrets under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of procedural law by the court below

According to the records, it is known that there is no change in the members of the full bench between the date of trial on which pleadings are closed and the date of trial on which the judgment was rendered. In such a case, there is no need to renew the procedure of trial, and therefore

On the date of pronouncement of judgment, amendments may be made without the attendance of the public prosecutor (Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a violation of procedural laws and regulations affecting the judgment that did not notify the public prosecutor of the date of pronouncement (in addition, according to the Gu or the record, the public prosecutor was present at the court on the date of pronouncement

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)