1. Overview of the Case
While working at the victim company, Mr. A took a photo of the raw material measurement and manufacturing instructions containing the manufacturing method in this case, which is a trade secret of the victim company, with his cell phone. Afterwards, he transferred to B ("Company B") and conducted research and development tasks using the manufacturing method at Company B under the instructions of the head of the research center, Mr. C.
Alleging that Mr. A used and leaked the victim company’s trade secrets to Mr. C for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or causing damage to the victim company (hereinafter referred to as "unfair purpose") and that Mr. C acquired and used the victim company’s trade secrets for the unfair purpose, the prosecution indicted Mr. A, Company B and Mr. C on charges of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act "Unfair Competition Prevention Act"). Company B was indicted on the basis of joint penal provisions.
The court of first instance declared a guilty verdict against all the defendants (Cheonan Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Godan1267, dated November 14, 2019). However, the appellate court ruled that all of Mr. A, Company B and Mr. C were found not guilty, citing freedom to find a new employer (Daejeon District Court Decision 2019No3554, dated October 19, 2022, hereinafter referred to as "original judgment"). The prosecution appealed the decision.
2. Court Judgment
The Supreme Court issued a judgment quashing and remanding the original judgment on May 30, 2024. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that, taking into account the occupation and career of Mr. A and Mr. C, the motive and circumstances of their actions, and the relationship between the victim company, which is the holder of the manufacturing method, and Mr. A and Mr. C, who acquired the manufacturing method, although there is an ample room to see that Mr. A used and leaked the manufacturing method to Mr. C for an unfair purpose and there is an ample room to see that Mr. C acquired and used the manufacturing method for the unfair purpose, the lower court made a wrong decision by misunderstanding the legal principle of intentional or fraudulent use to obtain profits or inflict damage to a holder of trade secrets under Article 18 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and failing to fully conduct necessary deliberation (Supreme Court of Korea Decision 2022Do14320, dated May 30, 2024).
3. Our role and argument
Representing the victim company, we focused our efforts on supporting the prosecution and uncovering the illegality of the original judgment. Even though the freedom to find a new employer must be guaranteed, it is clear that trade secrets secretly acquired from a previous job should not be used without permission after moving to another employer. This case is not a case that takes issue with Mr. A's transfer to another employer itself, but a case that takes issue with the reckless use of trade secrets after the transfer. We proved that the essence of this case is that Mr. A and Mr. C attempted to get a free ride on the extensive efforts made by the victim company to develop and manage trade secrets, and that it was clearly supported by evidence that Mr. A and Mr. C had the unfair purpose.
□ Attorneys in charge: Han Tae-young and Jung Young-hun
