beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D. Pronouncement of a penalty shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the facts charged by Defendant A, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charge of acquiring each trade secret listed in [Attachment A] Nos. 33435 through 33464, 33480 through 33484, each file constitutes a trade secret since the victim company's effort and cost was kept confidential and has property value. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the trade secret of each file, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) As to the facts charged of the divulgence of trade secret listed in [Attachment D] No. 3] No. 3, which the lower court acquitted Defendant D of the charge, the file constitutes trade secret as included in the mid- and long-term business promotion plan of the victim company, such as the expected annual sales of new expected products for development, five-year development plans for new products, and human resource development plans.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the trade secret of the above file, is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
3) Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F Co., Ltd.”)
(A) With respect to the facts charged in this case against the Defendant Company, the amount of profit from the Defendant Company’s property is equivalent to the reduced cost of technology development caused by the trade secret, and the difference between the product sales profit and the product sales profit if the product was developed by using the trade secret to the product production. However, there is no data that the Defendant Company actually developed and made profits from the vehicle developer using the drawings file, etc., and thus, the product sales profit should be excluded. However, the Defendant Company’s above.