beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals against the Defendants of the appeal and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A - Among the sentencing division - The sentence (two million won penalty) imposed by the original trial on Defendant A is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts - Regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of trade secrets, etc.), - According to the testimony of employees of FF Co., Ltd., including the witness J (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), Defendant A set up a private security service (limited to a specific person by setting up a password) to restrict access to the office, Defendant A’s access to the office-related office-related office-related office-related files containing information such as product cost and processing cost, and thus, written warning that the external leakage is prohibited. Thus, Defendant A’s non-indicted 1 (hereinafter “the files of this case”) includes information, such as product cost and processing cost, and thus, it is sufficiently confidential. The victim Co., Ltd.’s computer is accessible only to a specific person’s computer. The victimized Co., Ltd. set up a private security service (subcom) to restrict access to the office-related office.
The purpose of managing the files of this case is to restrict the subjects and methods of access to the files of this case, and the victimized Company has demanded the employees to make a security pledge, and has provided security education for all employees once every six months.
In addition, the reason why the company's public use was used in the injured company is to confirm all e-mail related to the company by the representative director of the company. Thus, even if the files of this case are maintained as confidential business by considerable effort, the court below held that the files of this case are maintained as confidential business by considerable effort.
For the reason that it cannot be said that the Defendants violated the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (such as the divulgence of trade secrets).