After stealing the company's trade secret data, former large company employees and researchers who set up a new company were sentenced to fines.

The 19th Criminal Justice (CEO Sung-Hoon Kim) of Seoul Central District Court issued a fine of 15 million won to Mr. Shin, a representative of A company, who was accused of serving as a business and leaking trade secrets.

Kang and others who were involved in the crime were fined 7.5 million won each.

According to the prosecution, former L employees and researchers were members of the Project B project team, which L decided to pursue in 2014.

They are accused of establishing a new company in the United States in order to do business like 'B Business' in 2016, and leaking trade secret data of L company or using it for start-up in the process of leaving the company.

The court found that the information that Mr. Shin and others attempted to use was the trade secret of L company, and they were allowed to take it out for profit.

The court said, "The results of the market research they exported are very valuable for business use, and all of them belong to L. They are recognized for their non-publicity and economic value." "The defendants received information security training and submitted a confidentiality agreement. We knew enough that they would be obligated to keep confidentiality of our exports. ”

He also said, "If the trade secret is leaked to a competitor or used for his own profits, he or she is guilty of business misconduct."

However, the judiciary view that the product process flow chart that they exported along with the market research results is not a business secret because it is a synthesis of what is already known.

The court said, "Protecting trade secrets is not intended to block competition from latecomers," he said. "If both sides compete fairly, they will have more choices for consumers. Not limiting the use of capabilities is in line with an economic order based on freedom and creativity. ”

As for the sentencing reason, "the infringement of trade secrets is not guilty in that it can unfairly profit from a position superior to fair competitors." The victim company is pleading with the defendants.

However, "The amount of money invested by the defendants is not relatively high, and the report omitted is information that the defendants can obtain easily if they pay the same costs, some are first offenses, and some are only one punishment. Was considered. "