All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act means the production method, sale method, and other technical or operational information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public, has independent economic value, and are maintained in secret by considerable effort.

The phrase “not known to the public” refers to a situation in which it is recognizable that the information is objectively maintained and managed as confidential, such as where the information is obtained from a person who has access to the information or a person who has access to the information, because it is not known to an unspecified number of people, such as a publication, etc., and where “the person who has an independent economic value” means that the person who has access to the information can benefit from competition to the competitor or that a considerable cost or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information through the use of the information, and where “the information is kept confidential by considerable effort” means a situation in which it is recognizable that the information is objectively maintained and managed as confidential, such as: (a) a person who has access to the information, or a person who has access to the information, is subject to the duty of confidentiality, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below was just in holding that the technology related to the ultra-frequency flow measurement circuit and algorithm and algorithm and the composite formula constituted E trade secrets, and contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

2. Examining the ground of appeal No. 2 in light of the relevant legal principles and records.