Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Manawons

LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Shin Young-ho et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gohap1330 Decided May 1, 2008

All of the convictions of the lower judgment (including the acquittals of the reasons and the dismissals of the reasons) and the acquittals of the lower judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, by imprisonment for a period of ten months, by imprisonment for a period of one year, by a person who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four and five years, by imprisonment for a period of eight months, and by imprisonment for a period of six months.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be 175 days each included in the above punishment against Defendants 1 and 2.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years for Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the date this judgment became final, and for one year for Defendant 6.

Seized Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 10, 11, 13 through 89, 125 from Defendant 1, and Nos. 123 and 125 from Defendant 2, and Nos. 90, 92, 95, 99 through 118, and 130 from Defendant 3, No. 119, 120 from Defendant 4, No. 121, 122 from Defendant 5, No. 124, 128, 129 from Defendant 6, respectively.

The prosecutor's appeal on the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the acquisition of trade secrets on November 30, 2006 and on December 20, 2006 against Defendant 3 among the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below is dismissed.

The charge of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the divulgence of trade secrets among the facts charged in the instant case is acquitted.

I. Introduction

1. As to the conviction of the lower judgment

A. Summary of the crime

(1) Status of the Defendants

Defendant 1 is an executive officer of Nonindicted Co. 1 from March 1983 to March 31, 2004, who works for Nonindicted Co. 2, from Nonindicted Co. 2, the head of the company from Nonindicted Co. 1 to the head of the Technology Group, and the head of the technology research institute from Apr. 9, 2005, who works for Nonindicted Co. 2, the head of the company from around 1983 to around 200, and the head of the company from around 207 to around 200, who works for Nonindicted Co. 1, the head of the company from around 200, and the head of the company from around 207 to around 207, who works for Nonindicted Co. 2, the head of the company from around 1, 207, and the head of the company from around 200 to around 12, 207, respectively, is an executive officer of the company from around 1, 201.

She all Sheed facts

No person may acquire, use, or divulge trade secrets useful to the company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing loss to the company, the Defendants joined each employee, such as the president, vice president, managing director, managing director, and managing director, etc. of the industrial plant department of Nonindicted Co. 2, which did not have any experience in water storage and power generation business on June through August 8, 2007, and planned the business related to water storage and power generation, and conspired each other to use trade secrets data in order to promptly promote large-scale storage and power generation projects, such as big projects, empty projects, shocking projects, etc., which were kept without return at the time of retirement of Nonindicted Co. 1, or acquired for unjust purposes (Defendant 2 and 6 are limited to the part of Nonindicted Co. 1, which was owned by Nonindicted Co. 2).

【Execution by Defendant

㈎ 피고인 1 : 사용 및 사용미수

From July 2007 to September 2007, the Defendant used Nonindicted Co. 2’s office for Nonindicted Co. 3, 2007, Nonindicted Co. 4, which had been in possession of Nonindicted Co. 5, to use Nonindicted Co. 3’s technological data related to the manufacturing and processing of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd. on two occasions, and prepared mc-12.5MGD (furairh-100%)- Nonindicted Co. 3.xls, MDV (final 5GGD-2107).zip, vent-lodrad-program. (xls, VS design procedures. 2.0% of the technical and management drawings of Nonindicted Co. 1, 207, which were in possession of Nonindicted Co. 4 Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., but which were in possession of Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, and stored 71,000 out of the aforementioned technical and management drawings-M-1-G data.

㈏ 피고인 3 : 사용 및 사용미수

The Defendant, from July 2007 to September 2007, at the Defendant’s office of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2007, prepared four files related to Nonindicted Co. 1’s business secrets, such as 2507 BAC balance sheet. xlps, 0608 Oct. 2006, 2006, using Non-Indicted Co. 1’s trade secrets-related technical data, such as 3 BAE balance sheet, 2507, which were core trade secrets owned by Non-Indicted Co. 1’s retirement, and stored them in the Defendant’s office using Non-Indicted 1’s trade secrets-related technical data, such as 20507, 2507, 207, 2507, 205GW-related drawings and equipment, and 5GW-related technical data, 205, 3GW-related design and equipment.

㈐ 피고인 2 : 취득, 사용 및 사용미수

(1) Acquisition

On August 15, 2007, at the Defendant’s office of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2007, from Nonindicted Co. 4, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, the former employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant acquired the USB with Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 5, a technical trade secret related to the development of Nonindicted Co. 1, which is a technical key trade secret related to the development of the Nonindicted Co. 1’s possession, including Pools, Arco-7FA, 7EA, 7EAxls, 2090ba-01 (38mHG) pdf, etc., where 28 of the technical core trade secret data, such as the attached Table 7, are stored.

(2) Use and attempted use.

From July 2007 to September 2007, the Defendant stored 28 files of the technical trade secrets in the office of the Defendant Co., Ltd. at the office of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2, Ltd. (hereinafter “HM”) and stored 28 files of the technical trade secrets, such as PID1.DG, F908, CTRITI.xls, etc., which are core trade secrets owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, stored in the U.S.B, and stored in the U.S., the Defendant without returning them at the time of withdrawal, and stored them in the office of the Defendant Co. 2, Ltd. (hereinafter “HM”), and prepared and stored them in the office of the Defendant Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd., with the intent of using them as reference material for technological development, such as (i) 14 U.S. project manuals, tender documentations, Gow volume, and prices, and (ii) preparation and implementation of the remaining technical trade secrets from the Defendant Co. 1, 3001.

㈑ 피고인 6 : 사용 및 사용미수

At the office of the defendant from July 2007 to September 2007, the defendant kept 181 files related to the development of the non-indicted 1 corporation, such as the trade secret related to the development of the non-indicted 1 corporation, from the defendant's possession of the non-indicted 2 corporation without returning at the time of retirement, and stored them on the computers owned by the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2, such as the trade secret related to the development of the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2's trade secret related to the development of the non-indicted 1 corporation. After storing the material of the non-indicted 1 corporation's quantity and price, load and DNA R (Div) in the non-indicted 2 corporation's office in the non-indicted 2 corporation from July 2007 to the non-indicted 1, 2007, the defendant prepared and prepared a plan for the development of the trade secret related to the non-indicted 1 corporation and prepared the related technical data of the prosecutor's office's office's project, estimate and estimated.

㈒ 피고인 4 : 사용

From July 2007 to September 2007, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant’s non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. from July 2007 to around September 2007, used the business trade secret data related to the stored water owned by the non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. as reference materials for the establishment of a business plan, which is the business trade secret documents owned by the non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd., which were received from the above Defendant 3.

㈓ 피고인 5 : 사용

On August 2007, the Defendant used the business trade secret data related to the inflows owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 as reference material to establish a business plan related to the management trade secret owned by Nonindicted Co. 2, 2007, which is a business trade secret owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 through e-mail from a person who was unaware of his name.

㈔ 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 : 사용

Defendant 1 received a proposal from Nonindicted 6 to participate in Lbbig Project from Nonindicted 6 on June 2007, and consented thereto, and instructed Defendant 2,3,4, and5 to prepare a preliminary proposal, and continued to use part of the preliminary proposal during July 2007, which was acquired at the time of Nonindicted 1 Co. 1’s employment, citing or modifying part of the C non-indicted 1’s tender proposal, e-mail-related part of e-mail, e-mail-related part of e-mail, e-mail-related part of e-mail, e-mail-related part of the e-mail-related part of the 2nd tender proposal, and Defendant 3 obtained information on Lbig Project from Nonindicted 1 Co. 1’s employees, and submitted it to Defendant 1 for reference in the determination of the price, and Defendant 1 determined that he/she is using the e-mail-related part of the e-mail-related part of the preliminary project’s e-mail development proposal.

B. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) Defendants and their defense counsel

In the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Even if not, the sentence of the court below against the defendants (two years of suspended execution in the year of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and one year of imprisonment for two years, three months, four, five, and six: 1 year of suspended execution, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Shed Public Prosecutor

The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. As to the acquittal of the reasoning of the judgment below and dismissal of the grounds

A. Summary

The court below acquitted Defendant 1 on the following grounds: (a) the data listed in [Attachment 5 2 and 3] the use of each trade secret on Defendant 2’s attached No. 9 No. 11; (b) the use of each trade secret on Defendant 4’s attached No. 5 2 and 3; (c) the acquisition of each trade secret on Defendant 5’s “JP Ky Poy Pool”; and (d) the acquisition of Defendant 5’s “business strategies”; and (e) the Defendants acquired and divulged the trade secret of Nonindicted Company 1 in preparing and sending a preliminary proposal for Lbig Project; and (e) the court below acquitted Defendant 1, part of the facts charged, as to the use of each trade secret on Defendant 2’s “Sbaya project estimate” and “RAS project estimate estimate sheet.”

B. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the first counsel

Although acquisition, use, and leakage constitutes an infringement of a separate legal interest, the court below should pronounce innocence in the text on the above Doshe and chiune, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and acquitted the defendant on the grounds.

3. Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, as to Defendant 3’s violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) and violation of occupational breach of trust by acquiring trade secrets around November 30, 2006 and around December 20, 2006

A. Summary of the facts charged (defendant 3)

피고인은 누구든지 부정한 이익을 얻거나 기업에 손해를 가할 목적으로 그 기업에 유용한 영업비밀을 취득, 사용, 누설하여서는 아니되고, 피고인이 공소외 1 주식회사에서 담당했던 담수 및 발전사업 관련 자료는 모두 업무상 영업비밀로 취급되고, 이에 대한 무단 복제, 복사, 유출이 금지되어 있으며, 업무상 취급한 영업비밀 자료를 외부로 유출하지 않고 퇴사시 반환한다는 비밀준수서약서까지 작성하였으므로 이를 취득, 사용하거나 외부로 유출하지 말아야 할 업무상 임무가 있음에도 그 임무에 위배하여 퇴사 후 동종업체에 입사할 경우 참고자료 등으로 활용할 목적으로, 2006. 11. 30.경 및 2006. 12. 20.경 서울 서초구 서초동 소재 공소외 1 주식회사 MED 사업 담당 임원실에서, 2차례에 걸쳐 공소외 1 주식회사 소유의 경영상 영업비밀인 ★060712.QBR 2_4분기.담수BG.ppt, QG 2_Group BAC보고서_050217_ 공소외 8.xls, AGENT현황.xls 등 별지1 기재 내용과 같은 기술상·경영상 주3) 영업비밀 78개 파일을 외장하드에 복사하여 가지고 나와 공소외 1 주식회사 소유의 담수 관련 기술상·경영상 영업비밀을 취득하고, 공소외 1 주식회사에 위 영업비밀의 시장교환가치 상당의 액수 불상의 재산상 손해를 가하고, 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하였다.

B. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal

In the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding.

4. Scope of the indictment;

According to each of the records of the court below's 8th trial records, it is clear that the prosecutor did not separately prosecute the bottom portion of the criminal facts mentioned above as the crime of violation of the Act due to the Acquisition of Trade Secrets.

5. Object of the trial;

In light of the above, among the part not guilty in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it can be seen that among the materials listed in the annexed Nos. 5 2 and 3 of Defendant 3, the use of each trade secret concerning the materials listed in the annexed Nos. 9 of Defendant 2 and the part dismissing the grounds for dismissal is exempted from the air defense between the parties. Accordingly, the conclusion of the court below is followed.

Ⅱ. Determination

1. General theory

(a) the meaning of “trade secret”;

(i)the definition of trade secrets as defined in Article 2(2) of the Act;

Trade secret means a production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which is not known publicly, has an independent economic value, and has been maintained in secret by considerable effort;

D. Contents of the Supreme Court Decision

First of all, the term "not known to the public" means that the information is not known to many and unspecified persons because it is not known to the public, such as the publication, etc., and it is ordinarily impossible to obtain the information without going through the holder, and even if the holder manages it as a secret, if the contents of the information are already known to the general public (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004).

In addition, the meaning that "the information has an independent economic value" is that the holder of the information can benefit from competition to the competitor through the use of the information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information. If the information satisfies all the above requirements, the information is not a process of completing the degree that it can be used for business activities immediately, or it does not have any help to a third party, or if it is a product, it does not interfere with deeming the information as a trade secret (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do623, Feb. 15, 2008).

In addition, “a person who shall be kept confidential by considerable effort” means a situation in which it is recognizable that the information is maintained and managed as confidential objectively, such as making or notifying a person who may access the information, restricting access to the information, or imposing a duty of confidentiality on the person who has access to the information, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3435, Jul. 10, 2008).

(b) the meaning of "acquisition" of trade secrets under Article 18(2) of the Act;

(i) Contents of the Supreme Court ruling

The term "acquisition of trade secrets" refers to a case where trade secrets are created by social norms as one's own and can be used (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da1928, Jun. 9, 1998). Since a person who becomes an employee of a company and can use the trade secrets has already been acquired the trade secrets concerned, it is reasonable to view that such act does not constitute the acquisition of trade secrets under the above provision, regardless of the fact that the act of removing the trade secrets without permission from the outside of the company can constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do679, Apr. 10, 2008).

She review

The term "acquisition of a trade secret" means a case in which a person has been able to use a trade secret by mediating the memory, memory medium, etc. or securing the possession of a material directly, etc. In this context, whether the mediating, etc. is made by means of theft, deception, threat, or other unlawful means, or whether a person who is able to handle a trade secret pursuant to a contractual relationship, etc. is caused by an occupational instrument, and in particular, even if a person possesses the memory medium or fluid outside or alters the storage place of the material into another place, this still continues to be a situation in which the person can use the trade secret, and thus, separate acquisition of a trade secret is not established.

(c) the meaning of “use” of trade secrets under Article 18(2) of the Act;

(i) Contents of the Supreme Court ruling

The use of trade secrets refers to an act that is directly or indirectly used for corporate activities by using it for business activities such as production and sale of goods, etc. or for research and development projects, etc. according to the original purpose of use of trade secrets, and that is specifically possible (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da1928, Jun. 9, 1998).

She review

However, the use of a trade secret is an act directly favorable to the production, sale, or other business activities of the trade secret in accordance with the original purpose of the trade secret, that is, an act of indirectly applying the trade secret in question to the production, sale, or other business activities by taking into account the direct use of the trade secret and the original purpose of the trade secret, i.e., an act of indirectly utilizing the trade secret in question, i.e., an act of indirectly applying the trade secret in question, i.e., an act of indirectly using it., an act of using the trade secret in question, i.e., an act of using the trade secret in question, i., how the trade secret in question has been used or used for the business activities in question, and the extent that it is possible to specify

(d) Timing to commence the commission of a violation of the Act due to the use of trade secrets;

On the other hand, if an actor has reached the stage of inspecting the trade secret (in particular, if the trade secret is in the form of a file, it should reach the stage of storage beyond the scope of the file (if the trade secret is in the form of a document, it should be in the form of a document) and at least the relevant file to the stage of coming back), it can be deemed that the actor committed an act including a direct risk of infringing on the trade order’s soundness by preventing the act of infringing on another person’s trade secret aimed at by Article 1 of the Act and maintaining the soundness of the trade order (in addition, an independent risk in relation to the crime of violating the law by acquiring the trade secret). Accordingly, it shall be deemed that the criminal act of violating the law due to the use of the trade secret has commenced.

2. As to the conviction of the lower judgment

A. The Defendants and the second attorney’s assertion and determination on the assertion

(i)With respect to the time of acquisition of trade secrets

㈎ 주장

At the time of the enforcement of the former Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jan. 20, 2004), only the act of divulging trade secrets of the former and incumbent executives and employees of the company was punished, and their act of acquiring and using trade secrets was not punished. Thus, even if a person who acquired trade secrets at the time of the enforcement of the former Act uses trade secrets after the enforcement of the former Act (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jul. 21, 2004) (amended by Act No. 7095 of Jul. 21, 2004), this cannot be punished by the former Act just as at the time of the enforcement of the former Act (excluding the materials related to Defendant 1, except for the attached No. 4 Nos. 2, 6-8, the remaining materials, 1-6, 6-1, 8-12, 228, 1-3, 5, 61, 12, and 27-27 projects proposals as at the time of tender implementation.

㈏ 검토

In full view of the fact that the original acquisition and use of trade secrets are different in itself, and that the new and old law lists the types of infringement of trade secrets in Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) through (f) of the same Act, and prescribes the distinction between the acquisition of trade secrets and the use of trade secrets, as well as that of the new and old law, Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the same Act provides for the act of using or disclosing trade secrets to obtain unjust profits or to inflict damage on the owner of the trade secrets in accordance with a contractual relationship, etc. as provided by Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the same Act, and there is no special transitional provision related to the aforementioned assertion, it is reasonable to deem that even if a person who acquired trade secrets at the time of the previous law, if used them after the enforcement of the new law, it would be punished in accordance with the new law, not the previous law. Therefore, the

She In relation to the type of acquisition of trade secrets

㈎ 주장

In order to establish the acquisition of trade secrets under Article 18(2) of the Act, it shall be an act of obtaining trade secrets by means of theft, deception, threat or other unlawful means, i.e., "act of obtaining trade secrets" as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 3(a) of the Act, and the use of trade secrets is premised on such an act of obtaining trade secrets. Thus, even if trade secrets are used unless they are acquired by improper means, they do not constitute the use subject to punishment (the above assertion is based on the fact that the defendants did not acquire trade secrets by improper means).

㈏ 검토

As seen above, the term "acquisition of trade secrets" means the case in which one is in a situation in which one is able to use his/her trade secrets by mediating his/her memory, memory medium, etc. or by securing the possession of fluids directly. It shall not be determined whether the mediating, etc. is made by means of theft, deception, threat, or other unlawful means, or whether a person who is able to handle trade secrets pursuant to a contractual relationship, etc. is caused by an occupational instrument. As such, the above argument that differs from this premise is without merit.

【Protection of Trade Secrets】

㈎ 주장

Defendant 1 acquired most of the materials prior to April 10, 204, except for the materials listed in Nos. 4 2, 6-8, and Defendant 1’s use and attempted use of the trade secret of this case. Since the time when the issue was the use and attempted use of the trade secret of this case was from July to September, 2007 after three years elapsed, most of the above materials were no longer confidential upon the lapse of the period of trade secret protection.

㈏ 검토

In light of the records, Defendant 1, who served as the head of the Technology Research Institute until March 31, 2004, did not immediately retire, but as a standing adviser until April 9, 2005, continued to serve as a non-permanent adviser until April 9, 2007. Accordingly, the duty to maintain confidentiality of the trade secret data (including the trade secret data previously acquired) which he/she served as an executive officer or employee and comes to know or comes to know, shall also be deemed to continue without interruption. Thus, the above argument that the three years elapsed from April 2004 to April 31, 200 as the protection period of the trade secret of this case is without merit.

· Regarding the interpretation of trade secrets

㈎ 주장

It shall be strictly interpreted that the meaning of the use of trade secrets in Article 18(2) of the Act is limited to cases where a person who has acquired trade secrets useful for the company with intent to obtain unjust profits or to inflict damage on the company, has used them for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or inflicting damage on the company.

㈏ 검토

On the other hand, as seen earlier, a person who is entitled to handle trade secrets pursuant to a contractual relationship, etc. can also obtain trade secrets in the course of business. In the event that such a person uses trade secrets for the purpose of benefiting from the duty of confidentiality, obtaining unjust profits, or inflicting damage on the company, it is obvious that the person who is the holder of the trade secrets is punished as a violation of the law due to the use of trade secrets. Thus, the above assertion is without merit

(v) otherwise alleged in the misapprehension of legal principles as to co-principals, and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time when the commission of a crime of violation of the law was commenced due to the use of trade secrets, the part concerning the allegations by the Defendants and the first counsel and the determination thereof

B. The Defendants and the first counsel’s assertion and determination thereof

(i)With respect to trade secrets,

㈎ 주장 요지

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the trade secret data of this case is trade secret.

㈏ 원심의 판단

(1) Whether the non-public nature and the economic usefulness are available.

Defendant 1

In light of the fact that the 00-6-6-6-6-6-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-4-4-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-3-4-3-4-4-2-2-

(C) part of the defendant 2

Then, the number 2-11 file of the [Attachment 7] includes the economic analysis of the plant construction cost, expansion unit capacity, quantity, efficiency and small consumption power of the project, etc. It is difficult to view it as public data due to its nature. Even if the environment of each domestic project is different and it is impossible to use it as it is, as a competitor, it seems that it would be able to sufficiently utilize these numbers in carrying out similar projects. The 00-21 file related data (Attachment 7) include specific values such as output, efficiency, pressure, temperature, and flow that are used in actual plant design, and if a competitor obtains it, it can be seen that it can be seen that there are optimal conditions such as pressure, water supply temperature, etc. of the relevant company, and it can be seen that there are no specific differences between the two kinds of equipment and the E- 2-1-21-21-21-21-27-24-27-27-27-27-27-27-27-2007-7-7-7-7-7-7-7.

Telecommunications and other parts

In light of the above facts, the documents Nos. 17, 51, 55, 60 files, Nos. 5, 6, 8 files, and Nos. 1 through 6 are prepared to obtain approval for the final tender of the project, such as data on the marketing strategy of the non-indicted 1 corporation, data on the estimate cost model applied at the time of bidding, competitors, and reports prepared to analyze optimal design specifications, etc., and are included in the important matters concerning the management of the non-indicted 1 corporation. In addition, if a competitor obtains them, it would be useful to establish a response strategy by understanding in advance the business activities, major marketing strategies, etc. of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and it would be deemed that the non-indicted 1 corporation will be used to establish a response strategy. The "No. 1 corporation's disclosure or analysis of the status of the non-indicted 1 corporation participating in the above IWP project and development project, and if it appears that it will be easily possible to use the new documents for the counter-indicted 1 corporation in the above market.

(2) Whether the confidentiality is maintained.

In light of the fact that ○○ Nonindicted Co. 1 gradually strengthened and strengthened the management of trade secrets as a result of the development of computer technology, ○○○ Co., Ltd., and if so, the Defendants, who worked for a long time with Nonindicted Co. 1, did not seem to have been well aware of the aforementioned circumstances, as well as prepared and submitted a written pledge to return all business information they obtained in office by the Defendants, and ○○ Nonindicted Co. 1 introduced an electronic document management system (DRM) around October 2006, and it appears that the said system was applied to all documents only after around October 2007. However, the confidentiality management can be determined differently depending on the degree of technological development and various conditions of the relevant company, and it is not always impossible to say that the company’s data was not managed as confidential solely on the ground that the external leakage of data was not physically interrupted.

㈐ 검토

Of the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to accept the part concerning the attached Nos 8 21-25, and 28 of the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

First of all, regarding the attached Nos 8 (Pthk.xls (Evidence Nos. 8-5046) data (Evidence Nos. 9) (Evidence No. 8-5046) (Attached No. 9), health room is merely a printed material that shows the result of the pipeline thickness calculated on the basis of a certain pressure and temperature, and the program that calculates the thickness of pipes by this method is already disclosed from the patent application (Evidence No. 77 submitted by the first counsel) of Nonindicted Co. 1. Thus, it is difficult to view the above data as a trade secret of Nonindicted Co. 1 with non-public nature.

Next, Attached Nos 8, 22 (CRITA.xls (Evidence Records 7-4358 et al.), 23 (CRITA1.xls) (Evidence Records 7-4450 et al.), 24 (Degrriteria.xls) (Evidence Records 7-4567 et al.), 25 (Evidence Records 7-4767), 28 (Evidence Records), and 28 (Evidence Records) (Evidence Records 7-4767 et al.) (Evidence Records 7-4682 et al.) are not directly prepared by Nonindicted Co. 1, and the above materials do not seem to have been prepared by Nonindicted Co. 1, and there seems to have been considerable circumstances to deem that Nonindicted Co. 1 experienced were melting, and therefore, it is difficult to view the foregoing materials as trade secret Nos. 2384 et al. e., 213.

Thus, a public prosecution concerning the above Nos. 23 and 28 materials shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the case in which a public prosecution was instituted again for the case in which a public prosecution was instituted. Since the facts charged concerning the materials Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25 and 9 Nos. 25 and 9 above constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, it shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as seen below, inasmuch as it is found to be guilty of a violation of the law due to the use or attempted use of trade secrets related to

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

With respect to the violation of the law by the “use” of the trade secret

㈎ 주장 요지

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts as to whether trade secrets are used.

㈏ 영업비밀의 사용의 의미 및 그 실행의 착수시기에 관한 재론

본문내 포함된 표 단계 행위의 태양 구분 0 취득 ？ 1 저장 or 비치 실행의 착수 없음 2 열람 미수(주 5) 2-1 열람 후 이용성·활용성 고려중 미수 3 실행(이용 or 활용) 기수(주 6) 4 결과(미완성 포함) 기수

Note 5) An attempted crime

Note 6) Number of instruments

㈐ 영업비밀의 사용으로 인한 법 위반의 점에 대한 개별적 검토

1. Attached Nos 3 9: PR Calllance.xls

The grounds for the prosecutor

Defendant 1 stated in the prosecutorial office that the above data was opened to use as reference materials when preparing a strategic plan report (to report) from Nonindicted Co. 2 to the president (Evidence No. 2-891) (the prosecutor seems to interpret the meaning of the above strategic plan report as the STX-White Strategic Report on July 16, 2007).

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

However, it is possible to verify the facts (Evidence No. 6-3705) that the above data was perused on September 14, 2007, and there is no obvious evidence to verify how the above data was used or utilized in the preparation of the NAP strategic report, which is a report submitted to the ordering office after testing the performance of Plant prior to transfer.

(2) Attached 4 Nos. 5: A plan for building seawater plants and complex thermal power plants (a summary of Busan Metropolitan City and its surrounding areas).

The grounds for the prosecutor

Defendant 1, with the intention to participate in the domestic development market, has kept and used the drid of the above data in the STX office (the strategy of Nonindicted Company 2 to actively participate in not only the overseas market but also the domestic development market).

(B) Sub-examination: None of the commencement of implementation (1)

The facts (Evidence Records 4-2148) and the facts (Evidence Records 5-2984) stated in three pages of the above Newart Strategy Report as the active participation in domestic market development are acknowledged, but it is difficult to readily conclude that the above data was used or utilized in the preparation of the above strategic report solely on the above facts, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

③ 별지4 순번 6 : JEBEL ALI "M" PROJECT 추진 검토, /별지5 순번7 : 060320.Jebel Ali M 프로젝트 추진 보고서.kwp.lnk ⇒ 기수(4단계)

In full view of the records of Defendant 1’s prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 2-775), records of seizure (Evidence No. 4-2148), investigation reports (Evidence No. 9-5722) (Evidence No. 9-5722), etc., it is recognized that the above data was used as reference materials for the preparation of the above “Newart” strategic report.

④ 별지5 순번 4 : 대형프로젝트수행방안(증거기록 5-3417) ⇒ 미수(2단계)

In light of the contents of the e-mail sent by Defendant 3 to Defendant 1 (Reference: Defendant 4), it is possible to acknowledge the fact that the above data was perused at that time, but there is no obvious evidence to confirm how the above data was used or utilized in the future in the implementation of the project.

⑤ 별지5 순번 6 : 2003년경영계획(최종송부용).lnk, /별지5 순번 8 : 061231.담수 BG '07년 영업 전략회의.lnk ⇒ 미수(2단계)

In addition, there is no clear evidence that the above evidence was perused on August 24, 2007 (Evidence Nos. 6-3740 and 14-9399) and how the above No. 8 materials were used or utilized in the preparation of the business plan (Evidence No. 5-3517) dated August 17, 2007.

⑥ 별지6 순번 1 : 2004 PGI Conference 참석보고(증거기록 4-2163, 13-8480) ⇒ 실행의 착수 없음(1단계)

In light of the contents of the above data, the prosecutor argued that the defendant stored the above data in the STX office and referred it to the STX office for the purpose of reviewing the feasibility of the project, and failed to submit data to confirm how to use or utilize it specifically.

⑦ 별지6 순번 2 : Shuqaiq Ph.2 Water Transmission System 공사 요약보고(증거기록 4-2164, 13-8537) ⇒ 실행의 착수 없음(1단계)

In light of the contents of the above data, the prosecutor argued that the defendant stored the above data in the STX office and referred it to the STX office for the execution of the general project including Lbbic project, and failed to submit data to confirm how the data has been used or utilized specifically.

⑧ 별지6 순번 3 : 담수BG '05년 PJT별 사업실적 분석 및 연간전망(증거기록 4-2163, 13-8488) ⇒ 실행의 착수 없음(1단계)

Without presenting the calculation process of numerical value, the prosecutor asserts that the content of sales, sales cost, receipts and disbursements, annual prospects, etc. by project, which are shown in the above data, were reference materials for the preparation of an annual estimated amount of revenue, amount of revenue, sales cost, investment cost, etc. from 2007 to 2015 as stated in the 29, 30 pages of the strategic report on the above "Newart". However, the prosecutor failed to submit data to verify how specific they have been used or utilized.

⑨ 별지6 순번 4 : MED PJT 중기 수주 계획('06년)(증거기록 4-2164, 13-8542) ⇒ 실행의 착수 없음(1단계)

In light of the contents of the above data, the prosecutor argued that "the defendant was able to refer only to the preparation of the management plan of the non-indicted 2 corporation 2 corporation to enter the storage of the above data in the Hadrida, and the defendant did not submit the data to confirm how to use or utilize it."

(10) Nos. 6 5: JT Operation TA (Evidence Records 4-2163, 13-8533) in JT due to JT

The grounds for the prosecutor

The defendants used the above materials to prepare for the implementation of the project by referring them to the foregoing materials while keeping them in the Hadk capital. The expression "Newart" in the 34th Strategic Report refers to the expression "application of self-owned MFD technology" has been possessed through the above materials, etc.

(B) Sub-examination: None of the commencement of implementation (1)

However, the above data does not include the MF technology itself, but only includes the human resources management plan, execution organization, human resources management plan, and trial operation schedule related to trial operation, and it cannot be presumed that the above data has been owned by the MF technology itself, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the above data has been actually used or utilized in preparation for the implementation of the project.

(11) In the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the “JP KS Kyers Pro rata” (Evidence Records 4-2170, 14-914)

The grounds for the prosecutor

The above data is analyzed by organizing and analyzing the current status of fences and power generation-transfer-lease projects in the mid-dong area, the scale of major participating companies, financial status, and rainfalls, etc., which are useful data in calculating bidding and estimation. The non-indicted 2 corporation obtained information on the participants in the production and development market by utilizing the above data under the status of the experience in the implementation of plant work, and prepared a major project plan based on it. Specifically, the project was promoted in the Rabbbbic project, the empty project, and the shock-level water tank project.

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

In addition, there is no clear evidence that the above data was actually used or utilized in establishing a major business plan and promoting a Rabbbbic project, an empty project, a shock-level water tank project, etc., even though it is presumed that Defendant 3 delivered the above data to Defendant 4, etc.

(12) Criminal facts of the judgment of the court below "Business Strategyt Rate" (Evidence Record 10-6375)

The grounds for the prosecutor

The above data contains the business strategies of Nonindicted Co. 1 based on the analysis and understanding of trends as the five-year strategies of the Co. 1 Co. 2G, which include the business strategies of Nonindicted Co. 1, which are based on the research and understanding of trends. In the event that Nonindicted Co. 2’s competition is conducted in the field of co., Ltd., it was used as reference materials to easily secure competitiveness by easily grasping the internal trends and strategies of Nonindicted Co. 1, thereby facilitating the formulation of a

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

It is true that the above data was revised on August 9, 2007, and there is no clear evidence to confirm how it was used or utilized in the formulation of a fenced water business plan.

(13) The facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below (Evidence No. 5-2834 of the evidence record) "Article 5-2 of the Technology Introduction Review (Evidence No. 5-2834 of the evidence record) and FOSTW HEES AEEMNT" (Evidence No. 5-2863 of the evidence record)

The grounds for the prosecutor

According to the contents of the e-mail recorded on August 6, 2007 (Evidence Record 5-2833), etc. attached to the above data and the file attached thereto, it is confirmed that the above data was used in the process of introduction of the e-mail (Evidence Record 5-3121), August 13, 2007 (Evidence Record 5-3026), and the contents of the e-mail (Evidence Record 5-33355) as of August 14, 2007, etc., it can be confirmed that Nonindicted Co. 2 actually promoted boiler technology alliance.

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

In light of the contents of the e-mail sent by Defendant 3 to Defendant 1, 4, and 5 (the above 5-2833 et al.) (the above 5-283 et al.) and the contents of the e-mail sent by Defendant 3 to Defendant 1, 4, and 5 (the above e-mail et al.). However, there is no obvious evidence to confirm how the above materials were used or utilized in the process of the introduction of the e-mail, etc. by Nonindicted Company 2. (the same applies even when considering the contents of the e

▷라빅프로젝트 예비제안서 작성과 관련된 자료

① 원심판결 범죄사실 7항 기재 “쇼아이바2단계프로젝트 입찰제안서의 Commercial 부분 중 일부” ⇒ 기수(4단계)

On the other hand, the part of the Projem Management (Evidence Record 10-6246) among the commercial transaction amounts of the above tender proposal is expected to be cited or referred to in C: Business No. 4: Pro ratase's preliminary proposal for the Big Project.

② 원심판결 범죄사실 7항 기재 “쇼아이바2단계프로젝트 입찰제안서의 Technical 부분 중 일부, design data 부분” ⇒ 기수(4단계)

From among the parts of the above bidding proposal, the part of the "Sard Code 10-6254" (Evidence Record 10-6254) among the physical parts of the above bidding proposal is deemed to have been cited in the preliminary proposal in the Lbig Project (Evidence Record 5-2887), the part (Evidence Record 5-287), the part (Evidence Record 10-6269), and the part (Evidence Record 10-6277) of the Sbig Project (Evidence Record 10-6277) and the part (Evidence Record 10-6277) of the Debig Project (Evidence Record 5-2937) (Evidence Record 5-2937).

③ 원심판결 범죄사실 7항 기재 “소하르프로젝트 입찰제안서의 Technical 부분 중 일부”(=SCOPE OF SUPPLY 부분, 증거기록 8-5141), /별지9 순번 12 : Scope of Supply(증거기록 14-9607, 9903) ⇒ 기수(4단계)

The data of the No. 12 of the above No. 12 of the Scope was prepared by referring to the part of the SCOE OUPPLY Act among the proposal for the small project in the small project, and referring to the preparation of the preliminary proposal for the Lbic Project 5 : Teschn, S: 2: Main Equi Management 3 Scope, 2.1.3 Scope, 570 (Evidence record 2-569, 570).

④ 원심판결 범죄사실 7항 기재 “ 공소외 1 주식회사에서 진행한 담수「발전 프로젝트의 단가”[별지4 순번 7(Sabiya Stage 3 프로젝트 가격집계표) 중 피고인 3의 메모 등(증거기록 11-7079)을 중심으로] ⇒ 미수(2단계)

It is recognized that the above data was delivered to Defendant 1 and perused by Defendant 3, but there is no clear evidence to confirm how the unit price per 1MIGD unit price in the data was reflected in the Dbbic Project Vloume 1: C. No. S. 1. S.

▷견적설계와 관련된 자료

1. Serial 1 Nos. 3: mF3-Test (HJM).xls, / No. 2: mF3-Occ.xls, /p. 3: mF3-Occ. 90.xls, /p. 3: mF3-Occ. 4: mF3-Occ. 110xls, / net No. 110.xls, / 110.xls, / net 13: copy mF3-12.5MGD (fujirah-109-p. 100%) 3.xls

The grounds for the prosecutor

Since the shock 2-stage project was a project performed by Nonindicted Co. 1 in around 1993, the Defendants perused and used the above heat settlement program to re-verification the plant performance of the Lbig project using data entered in the heat settlement program of the latter project recently performed by Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation.

(b) Review: 2 Stage (Attempted)

The facts (Evidence Records 6-3687, 3689, 3691, 3693, 8-5312), the fact that the above data No. 1 were reproduced on July 19, 2007 (Evidence Records 9-5742), around August 19, 2007, around September 16, 2007, and around September 17, 2007 (Evidence Records 9-5742), and the fact that the data No. 11.xla file was inspected on or around September 19, 207 (Evidence Records 12-8342, 8344, 8347, 83484), and there is no obvious evidence that the above program was actually conducted on or around September 17, 2007 (Evidence Records 12-834, 8347, 8348).

(2) Attached 3 Nos. 10: ExecutionPjt electric area and weight ratio (2004-02-05).xls

The grounds for the prosecutor

Defendant 1 referred to the above data in determining the specifications of major facilities, such as expansion equipment, sea water heat equipment, etc., which are core facilities entering the offshore plant of Lbbbbbic project.

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

It is recognized that the above data was modified on July 19, 2007 (Evidence No. 9-5800) and there is no obvious evidence to recognize that the above data was referred to in determining the specifications of major facilities related thereto after the preparation of the preliminary proposal for the project in the 2nd phase project.

(3) Attached 9: Cofe par checks.xls.lnk, / No. 8: Balagle price.xls.lnk

The grounds for the prosecutor

The above data was referred to the calculation of the price of the development of Lbbig Project (200MW x 5).

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

It is only recognized that the above data was perused on August 21, 2007 (Evidence Records 9-5917, 5931).

▷견적가 산정과 관련된 자료

(1) Attached 5 No. 1: 0507 BAC check table. Lnk

The grounds for the prosecutor

Considering price increases based on the estimated amount of the project in the past, it is possible to compute the total prices of major Vendor items and plants, such as pumps, advanced equipment, drug injection equipment, etc.

(b) Review: Attempted (2 Stage)

It is only recognized that the above data was perused on August 24, 2007 and around August 28, 2008 (Evidence Records 6-3736, 9-5949).

② 별지3 순번 11 : Load BM list_기전설치물량(Rev.A_05-10).xls ⇒ 미수(2단계)

It is only recognized that the above data was revised on July 19, 2007 (Evidence Records 9-579, 5800).

③ 별지3 순번 5 : 입찰가총괄표.xls, /순번 6 : 예가산정-Tripoli.xls ⇒ 미수(2단계)

It is only recognized that the above data was perused on September 12, 2007 (Evidence Records 6-3695, 3697, 8-5312, 5313).

④ 별지4 순번 7 : Sabiya Stage 3 프로젝트 가격집계표 ⇒ 미수(2단계)

However, even though the above data was delivered to Defendant 3 and perused by Defendant 1, there is no obvious evidence to confirm how the estimation of the Lbbic Project is used or utilized.

▷성능/기본/상세 설계와 관련된 자료

① 별지3 순번 12 : Thermal calculation(section 1 to 5)-rev-B.xls ⇒ 미수(2단계)

The facts (Evidence Records 9-5740) revised around July 21, 2007 are only recognized.

② 별지3 순번 14 : vent-load-program.xls ⇒ 미수(2단계)

In light of its content, the prosecutor asserts that the above data was used for EPC ENgine engineering promotion purpose in August 2007. However, the above data was only modified on August 8, 2007 (Evidence Records 9-5757, 5759, 5761, 5784, 5786).

③ 별지3 순번 16 : vent-load-Umm-계산서-(Rev-A)-FC.xls ⇒ 미수(2단계)

In light of its content, the prosecutor asserts that the above data was used in accordance with the EPC ENgine performance goal in August 2007, but only the revised facts (Evidence Record 9-5761, 5788) around August 8, 2007 are recognized.

④ 별지3 순번 7 : Damage of Tube-Final수정본.doc ⇒ 미수(2단계)

However, the prosecutor argued that the above materials were used in advance to prevent the problem, because the prosecutor copied and used the plant performance and detailed design data of the 2nd stage project in the case of Lbig project. However, it is only recognized that the above materials were perused on September 14, 2007 (Evidence Records 6-3701).

⑤ 별지3 순번 8 : Fouling calculation.xls, /순번 9 : PR 주7) calculation-Preperformance.xls ⇒ 미수(2단계)

However, the defendants alleged that the above documents were referred to the preparation of the bid proposal for the project due to the reasons such as the above (4). However, the above documents were only recognized as being perused on September 14, 2007 (Evidence Records 6-3703, 3705).

6. Attached No. 4 No. 1: Fuja Drg (Evidence Records 11-6983-6996), / No. 2: P&ID - P&ID (Evidence Records 11-697-7001), / 3: Shoai Paba Paba Pabaant Genal (Evidence Records 11-7002-7006), / 4: All Drgs (Evidence Records 11-7006), each cycle of Shobaba drgs (Evidence Records 11-707013) (Evidence Records) (Evidence Records 11-707-7013) (Evidence Records)

The grounds for the prosecutor

The Defendants kept the aforementioned materials at the STX office to prepare for the implementation of the project simultaneously with the preparation of the bid proposal for the Lbbic Project. The proposal for the Lbbic Project was equally applied to the size, capacity, and specifications of the stack, the core facilities supplied by Non-Indicted 1 Company in the 2nd phase project, the shock is a shockor, and the exhaustor, so the said design materials can be used for production immediately without undergoing the additional verification process.

(B) Sub-examination: None of the commencement of implementation (1)

The facts that the above data was seized by Defendant 1’s STX office (Evidence No. 4-2147, 2148) are recognized, and there is no obvious evidence that the defendants had referred the above data from time to time in relation to the implementation of the Lbic Project.

① 별지9 순번 1 : DOR(Siemens＆화력＆보설).xls.lnk, /순번 2 : balagarh-dor.xls.lnk, /순번 3 : General dor(rev0).xls.lnk ⇒ 미수(2단계)

The above evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 were only acknowledged on September 14, 2007 and around September 3, 2007 (Evidence Records Nos. 9-5903, 5905, 5907).

② 별지9 순번 10 : DOR전사.xls.LNK[원심판결 범죄사실 4항 기재 “DOR(Division of Responsibility)” 포함] ⇒ 기수(4단계)

It seems that the format of lives, DOR (original) files is referenced to prepare DOR in an empty project (Evidence Records 3-1468, 14-9548).

③ 별지9 순번 14 : Bintan 프로젝트 입찰서(증거기록 9-5688, 14-9444), /원심판결 범죄사실 4항 기재 CEBU프로젝트 관련 파일 132개(이는 별지10 순번 1~3, 55~181 파일들을 가리키는바, 그 파일들의 합계는 130개임이 분명하다)(증거기록 14-9785 이하) ⇒ 미수(2단계)

The data of the tender document of the above B Ininan project is nothing more than the content of the CEBU project tender proposal (Evidence No. 14-9732, the evidence record No. 14-9732, the main text is that the above data is a non-indicted corporation 1), and it is merely a re-storage of the data by modifying only the head, floor, and STX-ro, and there is no obvious evidence to prove that it was equipped with the appearance of the tender document of the non-indicted 2 corporation, or that it was used or utilized in accordance with its original usage.

④ 별지9 순번 7 : HP steam line pressdrop.xls.lnk ⇒ 미수(2단계)

In light of its contents, the prosecutor asserts that the above data was used in calculating the quantity of pipelines in preparing a bid proposal for an empty project. However, the above data is recognized as a fact (Evidence Record 9-5927, 5933) that was inspected around September 14, 2007, and there is no obvious evidence that it was actually used or utilized in calculating the quantity of pipelines.

⑤ 별지9 순번 13 : 전기부하 및 소내 소비동력 목록(원심판결 범죄사실 4항 기재 “부하리스트” 포함) ⇒ 미수(2단계)

It is recognized that Defendant 6 perused the above data (Evidence No. 2-926, etc.) and there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge that the above data was actually used or used in the preparation of a lower list for the design of electric installations in an empty project.

⑥ 별지9 순번 15 : Glow 물량 및 가격(원심판결 범죄사실 4항 기재 “물량 및 가격” 포함) ⇒ 실행의 착수 없음(1단계)

Although the prosecutor asserts that the e-mail recorded by Nonindicted 9 sent by Nonindicted 4 to Defendant 4 was used by the entry of attached documents (Evidence Records 5-2829, 2830), it is difficult to find that Nonindicted 9’s prosecutor’s statement (Evidence Records 2-590) was used by Nonindicted 9’s prosecutor’s office, it is difficult to find that Nonindicted 9 actually obtained the e-mail quantity and price data and used them for reference in the comparative estimate of the empty project, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

【Data at issue as to whether to use the water tank project in the third stage of the shockora-2】

① 별지3 순번 5 : 입찰가총괄표.xls(증거기록 11-7449), /순번 6 : 예가산정-Tripoli.xls(증거기록 주8) 11-7458) , /별지4 순번 8 : Ras laffan B IWPP 프로젝트 견적가 집계표(증거기록 11-7080) ⇒ 미수(2단계)

In light of its contents, the prosecutor claims that the above data was used to determine the bid price of the water tank project and to compute the price of the project in question. However, the above No. 5,695, 3697 was only recognized as a fact (Evidence Records 6-3695, 3697) on September 12, 2007, and even in the case of the above No. 8 materials, there is no dispute over the reading facts, and there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge how the specific contents of the price have been used or utilized for the calculation of the price of the project in question.

② 별지4 순번 1 : Fujairah Drg 일체(제작분)(증거기록 11-6983~6996) ⇒ 실행의 착수 없음(1단계)

In light of the contents of the above data, the prosecutor only argued that the defendant's above data is kept in the STX office, referring to the appropriateness and efficiency of the water tank drawings related to the above project, and failed to submit data to confirm how the data has been used or utilized.

【Other data on whether to use them in connection with the aforementioned business activities】

The data from [Attachment 5] Nos. 5 (Workhops), No. 5 (PID0.DWG.lnk), and No. 6 (PID1.DWG.nnk) are only recognized as having been inspected, and the data from [Attachment 3] Nos. 15 (v) [Account-Od-Um-Account-Account-(Rev-0)-Submission.xls] cannot be confirmed.

㈑ 소결

Therefore, the court below's judgment that found Defendants guilty of the violation of the Act due to the use of trade secrets, on the grounds that there is no evidence that the Defendants started the implementation of the act of using trade secrets with respect to the materials stated in [Attachment 3] Nos. 15, 4-5, 1-5, and 9 Nos. 15, and 4 of the court below's crime, and the facts charged in this part of the court below's crime should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the court below found Defendants guilty of the violation of the Act due to the use or attempted use of trade secrets which are related to the comprehensive crime, there is no violation of the Act No. 1-14, 16, 7, 5-1, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 of the judgment below's "No. 1, 50-3, 50-3, 1, 14 of the court below's "No.

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

【Attempted Use of Trade Secrets’s Violation of the Act

㈎ 주장 요지

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts as to attempted use of trade secrets.

㈏ 영업비밀의 사용미수로 인한 법 위반죄로 기소된 부분

The date, time, place, etc.: the STX office from July 2007 to September 2007, and the STX office

Defendant 2-5, 9, 11, 13-20, 22-24, 38-4, 47-59, 61-71, and 56 files of technical and managerial trade secrets owned by Defendant 2 on two files other than those prosecuted for a violation of the Act due to the use of Defendant 1's trade secrets contained in the main sentence, and Defendant 2-5, who did not copy the trade secrets listed in the separate sheet No. 2-5, but did not return the trade secrets to Defendant 2-4, excluding those which were prosecuted for a violation of the Act due to the use of the trade secrets listed in the separate sheet No. 3-4, 0608, 206, excluding those which were stored in the computer No. 2-4, 13-20, 27-34, 38-14, 47, 207, 2-4, 208, 34, 2-4, and 54, 2,

9) Files

㈐ 원심의 논거

The court below held that, in an attempted crime, the use of trade secrets refers to the use of trade secrets acquired directly or indirectly for corporate activities according to their original purpose, and the commencement of the use of trade secrets is recognized only when there is a close act on the protection of legal interests or the infringement of legal interests. In other words, the trade secrets data subject to ○○ is a technical and managerial information accumulated in the course of performing a project. Thus, unless the company seeking to use ○○ data does not carry out a project completely identical to the existing project, it is difficult to present any material use other than the above data for its own business. If so, the court below held that, in light of the fact that the company carrying out a similar project had already started to use the trade secrets at any time with the aim of using them for its own business, it should be deemed that it had already started to use them, and that the Defendants had already been using them in a similar project or had already been using them to store them to ○, or that it was reasonable to see that it had already started to use them at any time. Furthermore, the Defendants had already been using them.

㈑ 검토

We cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In other words, as seen earlier, an actor may be deemed to have committed an act including a direct risk of infringing on the soundness of trade order by preventing an act of infringing on another person’s trade secret, which is the purpose of Article 1(1) of the Act, at the time close to the business activity to be used or utilized in relation to the pertinent business activity (in addition, an independent risk in relation to the crime of violating the Act by acquiring trade secret, as well as the independent risk in relation to the acquisition of trade secret), and only at this time, the act of keeping the trade secret in the office or storing it on the computer cannot be deemed to have been committed an act of including the above risk (in particular, an independent risk in relation to the violation of the Act by acquiring trade secret), in consideration of the intention to use it for its own business purpose.

Examining the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants had perused the said data at the time close to the business activities intended to use or utilize the said data for the pertinent business activities. If so, the above data cannot be deemed to have commenced the act of using trade secrets. As such, the facts charged for violating the Act due to the attempted use of trade secrets constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the Defendants should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as seen earlier, inasmuch as the Defendants found guilty of a violation of the Act due to the attempted use of or attempted use of trade secrets in relation to the crime

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is justified.

m. Regarding Defendant 2’s acquisition of trade secret data listed in Appendix 7

㈎ 주장 요지

The above defendant did not have the awareness that the above data was reverted to others, and there was no intention to obtain unjust profits in relation to the acquisition or to inflict losses on the non-indicted 1 corporation.

㈏ 검토

In light of the records, the court below determined that Defendant 2 had been fully aware of the fact that the trade secret data listed in attached Form 7 was Nonindicted Co. 1, based on the evidence adopted by Defendant 2. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (In addition, according to records, it is difficult to see that the above Defendant did not have the above purpose at the time of acquisition of the above data) and it is difficult to see that there was an error of mistake of facts

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is without merit.

(v)with respect to the scope of the Defendants’ recruitment;

㈎ 주장

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts as to the establishment of joint principal offender.

㈏ 검토

In light of the records, the court below determined that the defendants' collusion with respect to the crime of this case can be sufficiently recognized based on the evidence adopted. The judgment of the court below (excluding the part which differs from the judgment of the court below with respect to the use of trade secrets among them) can be justified. However, even according to the judgment of the court below, even according to the above "New Start Strategic Report", "No. 3 water tank projects", "Newart Strategic Report", "No. 6" and "No. 3 water tank projects", and "No. 3 water tank projects", and the part which the court below's judgment should be reflected in the criminal facts.

⑹ 영업비밀의 사용 및 사용미수에 관한 공소사실의 특정 여부와 관련하여

㈎ 주장 요지

The above facts charged cannot be deemed to have been properly limited to the subject of the trial, and since the defendants suffered considerable difficulties in exercising their right of defense, the court below which judged that the above facts charged was specified has erred by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

㈏ 검토

In addition, the above facts charged are sufficiently stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts of crime in light of the nature of the crime of this case, since the general indication of the facts constituting the crime of this case is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime of this case, and the contents of the trade secret in question are considerably specific. Thus, the defendants' right to defense as to the above facts of crime are not considerably hindered. Thus, the above facts of prosecution cannot be viewed as unlawful since it is not specified.

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is without merit.

⑺ 원심의 이유 무죄부분과 관련하여

㈎ 피고인 4의 ‘중동 IWPP Key Players Company Profile'에 관한, 피고인 5의 ’영업전략template'에 관한 각 영업비밀의 취득의 점과 관련하여

(1) Summary of argument

Since the acquisition and use of trade secrets under the law are infringement of different legal interests, the court below should have acquitted the above part.

(2) Review

In light of the records, the court below held that Defendant 2, who found the above part and Defendant 2 guilty below, deemed the violation of the law due to the acquisition of trade secrets listed in the annexed Form 7 as a comprehensive crime and did not have been acquitted in the above part. The court below's decision is just and acceptable in light of the records.

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is without merit.

㈏ 피고인들이 라빅프로젝트 예비제안서를 작성, 송부함에 있어 공소외 1 주식회사의 영업비밀을 취득, 누설하였다는 점과 관련하여

살피건대, 원심은 우선 위 ㈎항과 같은 이유로 위 취득 부분에 관하여 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 않았던 것이므로 보이는바, 기록과 대조하여 살펴보면 원심의 이러한 조치는 정당한 것으로 수긍할 수 있다. 그러나 법 제2조 제3호의 각 목 의 규정 등에 비추어 보면, 영업비밀의 사용과 누설(누설은 영업비밀의 공개행위에 포함된 것이나, 그 비밀을 유지하면서 특정인에게 알린다는 점에서 공개행위와 구별된다)은 서로 별개의 법익 침해행위임이 분명하므로, 이들을 포괄일죄로 보아 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 않은 조치는 수긍하기 어렵다.

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

㈐ 영업비밀의 누설로 인한 법 위반죄로 기소된 공소사실과 관련하여

(1) Claims

The court below determined that the portion prosecuted for a violation of the law due to the initial divulgence of trade secrets was the "use" of trade secrets without any changes in the indictment in relation to the portion where the preliminary proposal for the Lbbic project was sent by e-mail after the preparation and signature of the Lbricker, but since the leakage and use are separate legal interests and it cannot be deemed as including the use of the secret, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amendment of the indictment.

(2) Review

On the other hand, as alleged in the above, leakage and use are separate legal interests and it is difficult to view that the leakage and use are included in the use. However, in comparison with the records, the court below's judgment is deemed to have acknowledged a violation of the law due to the use of trade secrets ex officio without any modification of an indictment, since the legal evaluation different from the facts charged for the divulgence of trade secrets within the scope recognized as identical, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and it is difficult to see that there is an error

Ultimately, this part of the appeal is without merit.

3. Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, as to Defendant 3’s violation of the Act by acquiring trade secrets around November 30, 2006 and around December 20, 2006, and violation of occupational breach of trust on the part of the lower judgment

A. As to the violation of the law due to the above trade secret acquisition

(1) Time of acquisition

In full view of the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence admitted by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 3’s acquisition of trade secrets was completed by copying 78 files for technical and managerial purposes, such as the attached Table 1, to the external hyd on November 30, 2006 and December 20, 2006. Defendant 3’s leaving the external hyd while withdrawing from Nonindicted Co. 1 Company on December 28, 2006 is merely the continuation of the situation in which he can use the trade secrets, and thus, the separate acquisition act is not established.

She Whether there was an intention to obtain unjust profits or to inflict losses on the business when acquired.

The grounds for the prosecutor

Defendant 3 had been able to have sufficiently predicted the possibility of retiring from reappointment since before November 30, 2006. In fact, around December 18, 2006, Defendant 3 transferred the fact of retiring from reappointment from Nonindicted 10, who was the head of the Galman BG personnel team, around December 18, 2006. Thus, the above acquisition had the above purpose.

Sub-examination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 3 could have easily informed of his resignation by taking account of the fact that Non-Indicted 1’s public prosecutor’s 20 years of 206 as well as MFD business records, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1’s public prosecutor’s 20 days of 20 days of 10 days of 206 of 206 of 206 of 7 days of 10 days of 10 days of 20 days of 20 days of 10 days of 20 days of 20 days of 20 days of 30 days of 10 days of 20 days of 20 days of 20 days of 3 days of 10 days of 20 days of 20 days of 20 days of 3 days of 10 days of 20 days of 10 days of 20 days of 3 days of 20 days of 20 days of 20 days of 20 days of 3’s of 16 days of 10 days of 3 days of 20 days of 2.

【Finality

Therefore, the court below's decision that acquitted the above purport is just and acceptable, and it is difficult to see that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, and there is no reason to discuss this part of appeal by the prosecutor

B. As to the establishment of occupational breach of trust

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted Defendant 3 on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the intention of breach of trust as to the act of taking out the above files at the time of withdrawal, along with the fact of violation of the law due to the acquisition of trade secrets as seen earlier.

She review

However, even if it is difficult to view that Defendant 3 had the purpose of gaining unjust profits or inflicting loss on the company at the time of acquisition of the above file, Defendant 3, while in office of Nonindicted Co. 1, kept documents, photographs, magnetic tapes, CD-ROMs, sampling and other forms of information storage device acquired during his term of office as high duty of care, and the principal shall not use such information storage device for himself or for a third party or not disclose it to the third party without the prior written consent of your company, and the office, home house, and all other storage information media kept around the principal, i.e., to return it to your company, even if he had the duty of returning the above files to Nonindicted Co. 1, regardless of the confidentiality and the pledge of prohibition of competitive business, he could not be seen as being in violation of the duty to return it to the said Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., even if he had the duty to return it to the said Defendant Co. 3, Ltd., without any inevitable reason, even if he could not return it to the said Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd. 3’s.

【Finality

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is with merit to accept for the above reasons, and it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out has a reason to discuss the above part of the appeal, and further, the act of taking out the above files, and the act of not returning or destroying the above files causes the risk of actual damage equivalent to the market exchange value of the above files to the non-indicted 1 corporation, and therefore, it

III. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, the part of the judgment of the court below's conviction (including the part of the acquittal and the part of the dismissal of the grounds) and the part of the acquittal should be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court below's appeal as to the violation of the Act by acquiring trade secrets around November 30, 2006 and December 20, 206 against Defendant 3 shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts are modified as follows, and the summary of evidence is cited in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Violation of Law】

The Defendants are prohibited from acquiring or using trade secrets useful to the company for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the company. However, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, around June 4, 2007, around July 13, 2007, around June 11, 2007, around June 9, 2007, around June 9, 2007, around June 11, 2007, around Defendant 5, around June 11, 2007, and around August 4, 2007, at the STX office, in collusions successively following joining the company of each of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd. of the Nonindicted Co. 2 of the Company;

1. Defendant 1:

From July 2007 to September 2007, JEBLI’s review on the implementation of the JEBLI’s PTRT, which was owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, was used as reference materials in preparation of the STX-White SP strategic report, which is a part of the formulation of the project plan related to the storage and development of fences, as well as in preparation of the STX-White SP strategic report, which was a trade secret data related to the management of fences owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, from July 2007 to July 1, 2007. However, in order to promote the design and development of the PP project, it was prepared by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company’s design and development of the project, as shown in Appendix 4 No. 7, which is a trade secret data related to the management of fences owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, as reference materials, and to prepare the project plan related to the aforementioned 3rd project’s design and development of the project.

2. Defendant 3:

From July 2007 to September 2007, Nonindicted Company 1 was used as reference materials for the preparation of the aforementioned Newart Strategy Report, which is a trade secret data related to the management of fences owned by Nonindicted Company 1, and from July 2007 to September 7, 2007, as reference materials for the preparation of the aforementioned Newart Strategy Report, the technical and management trade secret data owned by Nonindicted Company 1, such as No. 5, No. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8, as described in No. 1, No. 5, and No. 5, No. 4, 6, and 8, and the technology and management trade secret data owned by the said Nonindicted Company 1, FOST HEHENEAFENT conclusion-making, the development of the above Newart strategic report, the development of related business plan, RV projects, poor projects, shocks, etc., but the search and seizure of the project, etc. as reference materials for the design work.

3. Defendant 2:

A. From Nonindicted 4, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1 on August 15, 2007, who was employed by Nonindicted Co. 1, 2007, obtained technical trade secrets related to the development of Nonindicted Co. 1’s ownership, which are technical trade secrets related to the development of Nonindicted Co. 1, as indicated in the attached Table 7, including Poerer Ploel (INDOSUZ).xls, Arco-7FA, 7EA, 7EA.xls, t090ba-0-01 (38mHG).pdf, etc., from Nonindicted Co. 1, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 5, the current Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 5, who was provided with 28mHG materials

B. From July 2007 to September 2007, 2007, Nonindicted Company 1 used the trade secret data as reference materials for the preparation of DOR 9 No. 10 No. 9, the technical trade secret data owned by Nonindicted Company 1, as reference materials for the preparation of DPOR, and used Nonindicted Company 1’s technical and managerial trade secret data such as No. 1-8, 13, and 14 as reference materials for the preparation of proposals, estimations, design work, etc. for the promotion of DB projects, RV projects, and empty projects, but it was discovered by the prosecutor, which was attempted to have been attempted to have been seized by No. 1, North Korea, etc. for the purpose of seizure of No. 1, 2007.

4. Defendant 6:

From August 2007 to September 2007, the police officer tried to use the DNAR, which is a trade secret data owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, as reference material for the preparation of the DOR in the Ranan project. The CEBU project, which is a trade secret data owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, was used as reference material for the preparation of a proposal to promote an empty project, estimate, design work, etc. for the technical and managerial trade secret data of Nonindicted Co. 1, as reference material for the implementation of the HOBU project, such as perusal of the list, etc., but the intention was discovered to the prosecution, and the NOE et al. was not carried out and attempted.

5. Defendant 4:

In order to use the trade secret data in technical and management of the non-indicted 1 corporation as reference materials for the preparation, estimate, calculation, design work, etc. of the proposal to promote the above New SP strategic report, which is a trade secret data owned by the non-indicted 1 corporation from July 2007 to September 2007, it was attempted to use the trade secret data in the technical and management of the non-indicted 1 corporation as materials for the execution of the above NewP project, the empty project, and the shock-level water tank project from July 2007. However, it was discovered to the prosecutor's office and failed to commit an attempted business because it did not go through the wind that the two Koreas, etc. were seized.

6. Defendant 5:

From July 2007 to September 2007, Nonindicted Co. 1’s trade secret data, which was received through e-mail from the person who was named in his name, was used as reference materials for the implementation of the e-mail-based water tank project, such as the preparation of a business plan related to the technical and management of Nonindicted Co. 1’s trade secret data, such as the preparation of a Start Strategic Report, the preparation of a proposal, estimate price calculation, design work, etc. for the implementation of the e-mail tank project, the project was attempted to use the trade secret data for the technical and management of Nonindicted Co. 1’s company from July 2007 to July 2007. However, it was not possible for the prosecutor’s office to find out the fact that the Nowon, etc.

7. A. On June 2007, Defendant 1 received a proposal from Nonindicted 6 for participation in Lbbbic Project, and consented thereto, and instructed Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 to prepare a preliminary proposal, and continued to use part of the preliminary proposal on July 2007, part of the C/L of the tender proposal for the 2nd project project project, echife, and c/data as it is, with respect to the part related to fenced water among the preliminary proposal, which was acquired on July 2007 at the time of employment of Nonindicted Co. 1, 207.

B. Defendant 3: (a) obtained information on Lbbbig Project from Pulm, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and, at the same time, reported the unit price of the fenced water and development project carried out by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company to Defendant 1, and refer it to the price determination; (b)

C. Defendant 2 shall accept or use some of the parts related to the development of the preliminary proposal, which was acquired at the time of employment of Nonindicted Co. 1, as it is, among the parts related to the development of the echin project proposal (including attached No. 9 No. 12); and

D. Defendant 5: (a) prepares a server that Nonindicted Co. 2 has its own ability to carry out a Lbbig Project, which is a large development and gathering project;

E. On July 25, 2007, Defendant 4 signed and sealed the above Bericker’s signature and sealed it, sent a preliminary proposal for the Lbig Project prepared by using the trade secrets in technical and managerial aspects related to the inflows and development of Nonindicted Company 1, to the MOWS company’s MOWS company on July 25, 2007, by e-mail, and used the trade secrets related to the inflows and power generation owned by Nonindicted Company 1.

【Occupational Breach of Trust】

피고인 3은 공소외 1 주식회사에서 담당했던 담수 및 발전사업 관련 자료는 모두 업무상 영업비밀로 취급되고, 이에 대한 무단 복제, 복사, 유출이 금지되어 있으며, 업무상 취급한 영업비밀 자료를 외부로 유출하지 않고 퇴사시 반환한다는 비밀준수서약서까지 작성하였으므로 이를 외부로 유출하지 말아야 할 업무상 임무가 있음에도 그 임무에 위배하여 퇴사 후 동종업체에 입사할 경우 참고자료 등으로 활용할 목적으로, 2006. 11. 30.경 및 2006. 12. 20.경 서울 서초구 서초동 소재 공소외 1 주식회사 MED 사업 담당 임원실에서, 2차례에 걸쳐 공소외 1 주식회사 소유의 경영상 영업비밀인 ★060712.QBR 2_4분기.담수BG.ppt, QG 2_Group BAC보고서_050217_ 공소외 8.xls, AGENT현황.xls 등 별지1 기재와 같은 경영상 영업비밀 78개 파일을 외장하드에 복사한 후 공소외 1 주식회사를 퇴사하면서 가지고 나옴으로써 공소외 1 주식회사에 위 영업비밀 자료의 시장교환가치 상당의 액수 불상의 재산상 손해를 가하고, 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하였다.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

The acquisition, use, and attempted use of the trade secret of the accused: each of the Articles 18(2), 18-2, and 18(2) of the Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act and each of the Articles 30 and 18(2) of the Act; the choice of each imprisonment

○ Defendant 3’s occupational breach of trust: Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment for Defendant 3) of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment for Concurrent Crimes of Occupational Breach of Trust prescribed by the most severe punishment; Aggravated Punishment for the remaining Defendants on a crime of violation of the Act due to the use or attempted use of a trade secret with heavier punishment)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 1 and 2: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Considerationl Circumstances, etc. favorable to Reasons for Sentencing below)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

The criminal liability is very heavy in that infringement of trade secrets can take advantage of unjust profits from the superior position of "heatart" or "hour saving time," rather than fair competitors by such infringement. In particular, the trade secrets of this case, which the defendants infringed on, was accumulated by the experience and effort accumulated for a long time by the non-indicted 1 corporation, and could have considerable damage to the above company depending on the method and degree of use or utilization.

However, there is no realistic consideration that young men and employees who sacrifice their health and faithfully worked should be able to display their knowledge and ability to a certain extent after retirement. In particular, considerable of the trade secret data in this case appears to have contributed to the extent that the Defendants contributed to the development in the course of performing their duties, and Nonindicted Co. 1 is likely to have been able to secure a considerable level of technology due to the contribution of the Defendants.

In addition, the above circumstances indicate that the defendants had no record of punishment, or only have minor criminal records, and that they could have faithfully performed their duties, and the defendants could be deemed to have committed the crimes in this case and the extent of their participation shall be determined by taking into account the circumstances leading to the crimes in this case and the degree of their involvement.

1. Defendant 4’s acquisition of each trade secret on Defendant 5’s “Business Strategyt Rate” with respect to the “JP KyP KyP Kyers’ Pro rata”

이에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑺의 ㈎항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

2. The fact that the defendants acquired and divulged the trade secrets of non-indicted 1 corporation when preparing and sending the preliminary proposal for the Lbig Project

우선 위 취득의 점에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑺의 ㈏항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로 따로 주문에서 이유를 선고하지 아니한다.

However, on the grounds as examined in the same paragraph, innocence shall be pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Facts charged concerning the materials listed in the annexed 8 Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25, and 9;

이에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑴의 ㈐항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당하므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 의하여 무죄를 선고하여야 할 것이나, 이와 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 영업비밀의 사용 및 사용미수로 인한 법 위반죄를 유죄로 인정하는 이상 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

4. Attached 3: Attached 15, Attached 4 1-5, Attached 6 1-5, and Attached 15, and the facts charged concerning the quantities and prices stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment

이에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑵의 ㈑항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당하므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 의하여 무죄를 선고하여야 할 것이나, 이와 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 영업비밀의 사용 및 사용미수로 인한 법 위반죄를 유죄로 인정하는 이상 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

5. Attached 3: Attached 1-14, 16, 7-4 Nos. 7, 8, 5, 5, 6, 8, 8, 9-1-8, 13, and 14; the data stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment; “The Technology Introduction Examination with Alsom”; and “The Contents of FOST TER HENS AEMNT Conclusion” described in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment; “130 files related to CEBU (attached 10 Nos. 10-3, 55-181)”; and “BU” described in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment; “Dong WPK Plaers’s New Project Data” described in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment; “Business Strategy Data” described in paragraph (6) of the lower judgment; and “Non-Indicted Party 1-7’s unit price data” described in the criminal facts of the lower judgment.

이에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑵의 ㈑항에서 살펴본 바와 같이 모두 영업비밀의 사용의 기수에 이르렀다고 볼 수 없으므로 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당하여 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 의하여 무죄를 선고하여야 할 것이나, 위 공소사실에는 영업비밀의 사용미수의 공소사실도 포함되어 있으므로 공소장변경 없이 유죄 부분에서 판시한 바와 같이 영업비밀의 사용미수로 인한 법 위반죄로 처단하고 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

6. Facts prosecuted for a violation of the Act due to attempted use of trade secrets;

이에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑶의 ㈑항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당하므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 의하여 무죄를 선고하여야 할 것이나, 이와 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 영업비밀의 사용 및 사용미수로 인한 법 위반죄를 유죄로 인정하는 이상 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

Public prosecution dismissal portion: Facts charged concerning the materials listed in Appendix 8 23 and 28

이에 대하여는, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑴의 ㈐항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로 형사소송법 제327조 제3호 에 의하여 공소를 기각하여야 할 것이나, 이와 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 영업비밀의 사용 및 사용미수로 인한 법 위반죄를 유죄로 인정하는 이상 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

[Attachment 1-10]

Judges Lee Won-il (Presiding Judge) Kim

(1) In the fifth week of the judgment of the court, the court below held that the scope of Defendant 2 and Defendant 6’s solicitation was evident by the entry of the facts charged after the entry of Nonindicted Co. 2 and the above Defendants.

Note 2) All the bottom portion below is related to the scope of prosecution to be examined in paragraph 4 below.

Note 3) Attached 1 does not contain any technical trade secret, and it is obvious that it is a clerical error in “management trade secret”.

Note 4) The entry on the right and side below is omitted, for example, 5° 2522-2524 the pages of 5°2522-24 shall be indicated as 5-252-24.

5) In order to fall under this category, as seen earlier, the offender should have reached the stage of perusal of the trade secret in question at the time close to the business activity to be used or utilized in relation to the business activity.

6) In order to constitute such a case, how the trade secret in question has been used or utilized in relation to the business activity should be determined to a certain extent under the specific circumstances, such as the original usage and nature of the trade secret, the contents and the degree of progress of the related business activity.

Note 7) As seen earlier, the Prosecutor argued that the foregoing Nos. 9 was used in relation to the establishment of the project plan.

Note 8) As seen earlier, the Prosecutor argued that the said Nos. 5 and 6 materials were used in relation to the implementation of Lbbic Project.

9) Of the sequences 21 to 25, and 28, it is difficult to view the materials as trade secrets of Nonindicted Company 1.

주10) 이와 관련하여, 피고인들 및 제1 변호인의 주장과 이에 대한 판단 ⑵의 ㈐항 중 라빅프로젝트 예비제안서 작성과 관련된 ④항에서 살펴본 바와 같은 이유로, 피고인 1이 위 피고인 3로부터 전달받은 위 공소외 1 주식회사의 담수·발전 프로젝트 단가를 참고하여 위 라빅프로젝트의 입찰제안가를 결정하였다는 부분은 범죄사실에서 제외하기로 한다.