beta
Text
[Defendant A] The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and from February 2009.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case, even if each file data technology of this case in the decision of the court below was disclosed to the thesis, etc., the paper does not accompany design drawing, circuit drawing, etc., and studies and sells diagnosis system with the support of the government only to the injured company in the country. The technology on the development of diagnosis system requires a lot of know-how that is not applied with related data such as the paper already published (non-public nature), the injured company's security facilities, etc. (CCTV, access control, security pledges, etc.) made efforts to prevent leakage of the production technology of the diagnosis system (confidential management), and the above diagnosis system was made more time and effort and cost than 10 years to develop the above diagnosis system (economic usefulness). In light of the fact that each file data of this case was made public, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act") or the Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets, etc. (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act").
2. Prior to the judgment of the court below on the above grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) against Defendant A, C, D, E, and F in the judgment of the court below,
(a)the person; and
B. 1) A violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (a summary of the facts charged in the judgment below as to the divulgence of business secrets) by in collusion between the above Defendants from February 2, 2009 to April 2009, by installing a law firm implementation program (a summary of the facts charged in the judgment below)
B.2) We examine ex officio the part described in (A).
A prosecutor has reached the trial.