(영문) 부산지방법원 2008. 6. 5. 선고 2007노4229 판결

If the above defendants fail to pay the above fines, each of 60,000 won shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting the above defendants into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be discarded.

Defendant 1 (Defendant of the judgment of the Supreme Court) is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

1) Legal principles (the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act)

The specifications, unit price, sale unit price, unit price by customer, engine unit price, etc. of parts sold in the three-way industries contained in the unit price list of the instant case do not constitute trade secrets, and the said Defendant did not intend to make unjust profits or to inflict damage on the three-way industry by using them.

In addition, the above defendant's use of data, such as the unit price index ID, etc. of this case, is an infinite ex post facto act that is absorbed into larceny as stated in Section 2. A. of this case.

2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence (a thief)

In light of the fact that the above defendant has no criminal records other than the fine imposed due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the beginning of the larceny crime of this case was led by Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, in the course of reorganization of his book after the abolition of the three-way industry, he returned it to Nonindicted 1, the representative director of the three-way industry, and Defendant reflects his mistake, the court below’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the above defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2, 3

Considering the fact that there is no criminal power with respect to Defendant 2, and there is no other criminal records except for Defendant 3’s violation of the Road Traffic Act once, and that the Defendants committed the thief of this case with minor complaints against the company, but the method of committing the thief of this case was simple and most damage was recovered, and that there is no possibility that the said Defendants might commit the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the thief of the th

2. Determination

A. Meritorious of legal principles

The term "trade secret" means any technical or managerial information useful for any production method, sale method, or other business activities, which is not known to the public and has an independent economic value. Although individual information, such as size, unit price, and sales place of engine parts with strong competition, is disclosed to a certain extent due to the characteristics of the manufacturing and sales business system, so that anyone can access to such information, the data contained in the three-year unit price clive industry included in the three-year unit price clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive cl.

Furthermore, Defendant 1’s resignation from the three-way industry and taking office as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, a competitor of the three-way industry, was the use of materials contained in the unit price list IDs of this case which were stolen from the three-way industry, based on the purpose of securing customers easily by using trade secrets owned by the three-way industry and reducing the period of business stability. Thus, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 had unlawful purposes in full view of the above and the above circumstances.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion of the above legal principles is without merit.

(On the other hand, Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that the act of using the unit price pool of this case by the same defendant after the deadline for submitting a legitimate statement of grounds of appeal is an act subsequent to the theft of the DNA. However, the crime of larceny under the Criminal Code and the crime of unlawful use of trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act are different in terms of the form of the act and the legal interest protected by the law, and thus, this part of the argument is rejected).

B. The point of unfair sentencing

1) Defendant 1

In full view of the various circumstances indicated in the record, including the motive and background leading up to each of the crimes in this case, and the attitude after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2) Defendant 2, 3

According to the records, in light of various circumstances, including the fact that the damage caused by the thief by the above Defendants is not large, and the damage was recovered in all, Defendant 2 is engaged in the construction material business which is a separate category after the thief crime of this case, and Defendant 3 still works in the three-dimensional industry in good faith, and the above Defendants are divided in depth, and Nonindicted 1 also the representative director of the victim three-dimensional industry does not want the punishment of the above Defendants, the court below's punishment against the above Defendants is excessively unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 and 3 is well-grounded, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows. Since the appeal against the defendant 1 is without merit, the part against the defendant 1 is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence recognized by this court are all recorded in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.