The case holding that the defendants' act constitutes larceny and a technical trade secret infringement as prescribed by the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act if they were used to establish a new company while they leave the CD with technical data, etc. about the manufacturing facilities of products and production processes developed by the company where the defendants were working.

The case holding that the case holding that if the defendants kept CDs and used them to establish a new company while leaving the CDs, which copied the technical data, etc. about the manufacturing facilities of products and production processes developed by the company where the defendants worked, this constitutes larceny, and it constitutes a technical trade secret infringement under the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004).

Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 18(2)2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004); Article 18(2)2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (see current Article 18(2))

Defendant 1 and five others

For leap Jin

Attorneys Han-han et al. and two others

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, by imprisonment for a year, and by imprisonment for a year, and by imprisonment for a year, and by imprisonment for a year, and by imprisonment for a period of eight months.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 27 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 2, and one day each of the above punishment against Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall be included in the above punishment.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for three years for Defendant 1, and for two years for Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

The seized c.i.f., one c.o. (Evidence 11), one c.o. (Evidence 12), one c.o. (Evidence 13), one c.o. (Evidence 14), one c.o. (Evidence 15), one c.o. (Evidence 16), one c.o. (Evidence 17), one d. (Evidence 18), one c.m. (Evidence 19), one d. (Evidence 19), four d. (Evidence 20), four d. (Evidence 33), one c.f., one c., one c.f., one d. (Evidence 62), one f.o. (Evidence 67), one d. (Evidence 68), one d. (Evidence 168), one f.o. (Evidence 97), one d. (Evidence 70), one d. (Evidence 97) (Evidence 169), one d.7 d.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant 1 is a person who works as a researcher of the Korea Electromagnetic Research Institute from August 20, 197 to June 200 and worked as the director of the research institute for the victim company located in Incheon, which produces a consortium, and was in charge of the research, product redevelopment, and production facility development of the consortium, and Defendant 2 is a person who was in charge of the research, product development, and production facility development from around November 24, 1997 to June 200 as the above victim company's AlND (R&D; hereinafter the above victim company's 4th head from around 1997 to around 200, and Defendant 3 is a person who was in charge of the research, analysis, and design of the victim company from around 199 to June 3, 200, and Defendant 1 is a person who was in charge of the design and automation of the victim company from around 200 to June 4, 2009 to the above victim's 9th head of the research team.

Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 prepared and submitted a contract or a written pledge to the effect that the company’s trade secrets should not be maintained and disclosed to the outside at the time of entry, and the Defendants, despite their duty not to disclose the above company’s trade secrets to the outside, such as technical information on the manufacturing processes developed by the above company under the good faith principle or under the above contractual relationship, even though they were obligated not to disclose the above company’s trade secrets to the outside, they used the company’s establishment to work and produce and sell microphones from the new company using the above technology, etc.;

1. Defendant 1: (a) at the victim company around April 200, he shall be informed of all research achievements progress within the research department; (b) shall submit research records, etc. to its employees; (c) shall be different from c.D.; and (d) shall be required from c.i) c.s. Kim Jong-min, a part of c.m. for each of the working conditions and experimental data of sc.ling machine (Sc.M.); (c) c.i., c., 3 parts of al.m. microphones’ product characteristics; (d) 1 al.m., al. 8 al.m., al., al.b., al. 8 al.m. (2 al.b. al., al. e., e., e., e., e., c., al.b. 8 al.b. c., al. c., e. c., e. c., e. c. c., c.

2. Around May 200, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 4 to read “data on automatic control programs to be in charge” to Defendant 4, Defendant 4 delivered the above instruction to Defendant 2, who was an employee employee, and Defendant 2 received a copy of a scard which contains data on automatic control programs, such as a scarf and injecting the scarf on a computer of the same person from Defendant 2 around that time. Around June 2000, Defendant 2 went back to the victim company with the above scarf (No. 96) owned by the same company, and stolen this.

3. Defendant 2 or 5 conspired:

Around June 200, Defendant 2 and Defendant 6 et al. provide meals to Defendant 5 et al. around the victim’s company. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 5 that “the computer data on the tea households microphones in charge shall be contained in the chlody and shipped off.” Defendant 5 shall include data on the tea households microphones, etc. contained in the chlody’s computer at the victim’s company office around that time. Defendant 5 shall keep the data on the tea households microphones, etc. contained in the chlody’s computer from the victim company office around that time. Around June 200, Defendant 200, 200 and stolen Defendant 5 with the above chlody (Evidence No. 95) owned by the said company.

4. Defendant 2 or 6 conspired,

Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 6 to include working contents in Defendant 1’s computer at the victim company’s office at that time, time, and place as set forth in the above Paragraph 3, while providing meals together with Defendant 5. Defendant 2, at the victim company’s office, instructed Defendant 6 to include the data on the father, male, etc. inside the victim company’s computer at that time. Defendant 6, at the victim company’s office around June 200, posted the victim company with one copy of the above maldidi, which was owned by that company, and stolen it;

5. The Defendants, despite the fact that at the time, invested about 10 billion won or more in the above companies and newly develop Park BEC manufacturing technology by developing new technology for their own use until the end of the automated manufacturing process, shall success in the domesticization of various kinds of Back Emex base facilities, which are used exclusively by Japanese companies, and shall develop the method of Domination method in the self-fecation process to prevent the production and improvement of the variety quality of the company's equipment by developing the first precision assembly for the mass production system, by establishing a new technology for the production of the above companies to ensure that the company was engaged in the production and improvement of the quality of the company's products by arbitrarily controlling the noise and vibration and by controlling the productivity of the product, and by developing the production and improvement of the product quality of the company's products to prevent the production and improvement of the product quality of the company's own equipment to prevent the production and improvement of the product quality of the company.

In collusion for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits by using the aforementioned technology to establish a new company in which the Defendants would work, and by producing and selling microphones at that new company using the said technology, etc.;

around June 200, Defendant 1 prepared for the establishment of a two-use apartment in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City microphone manufacturing plant and company. Defendant 1, which is a technical trade secret related to the above non-party 2's manufacturing process, obtained for illegal purposes, provided that Defendant 1 provided the aforementioned non-indicted 1's product-related design drawings, such as antitension design drawings, automatic prefabricated design drawings, disks design drawings, disks-related design drawings, etc., and non-indicted 2's product-related design drawings, such as microphones, and cellphone design drawings, etc., written by each research institute to Defendant 2, and provided the above 0-party 1's product-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related equipment-related 2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Cho Jong-sung, Kim Chang-won, Shoho, Goo-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Won-won, Lee Jong-hee, and Lee Ja-hee;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants (including the statement 4, 5, and 6)

1. Statement by the prosecutor of the prosecution on the strict promotion, Cho Ho-ho, Kim Chang-chul, Kim Chang-chul, Kim Jong-ho, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-hee, and Lee Jin-hee (including the part of the testimony and the replacement of the defendant 4 and the replacement of the defendant 4);

1. A written statement prepared in the course of strict relief, satise, satise, satise, and Kim Jong-Un;

1. Each police protocol of statement against Cho Jong-ju, Kim Chang-chul, Mangjin-ho, Goo-ho, Lee Jong-ho, and Kim Jong-Un;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 18(2)2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Defendants)

Article 329 (Defendants 1, 2, 5, and 6)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38(1)2, and 50 (Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of the number of detention days before judgment is rendered;

Article 57 (Defendants)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendants)

1. Land to be submerged;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act (Defendants)

The grounds for judgment and sentencing of defense counsel's assertion

1. The Defendants’ defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant 1’s storage of the instant weather ID as a research material on behalf of the Defendant 1 did not return it while leaving the victim company and did not theft. The contents indicated as “trade secret” are actually vested in or known to the industry and cannot be said to be trade secret. However, in full view of the above evidence and relevant civil judgments and appraisal records, the victim company did not normally prepare weather ID and submit it to the Defendant 1, etc. with research material. Defendant 1 ordered the K&C Kim Chang-won to produce the above weather ID in the statement to the effect that he would work together at the end of April 200, Defendant 1's instruction to do so, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1's technology and idea cooperation with other employees, such as the idea, design, test result, etc., and was used or produced in the production as stated in the above facts charged, and thus, the Defendants' assertion that the above Defendants' trade secret belongs to the victim company's duty to divulge is not reasonable.

2. Defendant 1, as a sound technician in North Korea around April 1996, was included in the victim company and contributed to the holding of BECM technology. The term of protection of the above trade secret became final and conclusive in the civil judgment related to one year from the time when Defendant 1 retired from the above company, and Defendant 3 was sentenced to a fine once, and there was no criminal power on the part of the Defendants.

Judges Maximum Weather Conditions