Law firm Veat defense (acquittal) of violation of the Industrial Secret Protection Act regarding B
Article posted in | VEAT
B decided to resign from OO Company and start his own business. After going through internal procedures, he resigned and established □□ Company, which he is currently operating. Subsequently, OO Company filed a lawsuit against B for violating the ‘Law on Prevention and Protection of Industrial Technology,’ initiating an investigation.
The relevant technology is widely known in the field, and although it is difficult to view it as industrial technology under the Industrial Technology Law, OO Company had applied to the relevant ministry for designation as industrial technology just before filing the lawsuit, and it had been designated as such. OO Company claimed that it had incurred enormous human and material costs to develop the technology, submitting various experimental data.
The situation was very unfavorable because it had been designated as industrial technology by the relevant ministry, but Law firm Veat discovered that the Industrial Technology Protection Law had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, and although some expressions had been amended since then, the unconstitutionality had not been eliminated, that the relevant technology was a common one widely used, and that a detailed review of the records submitted by OO Company showed that the data submitted by OO Company could not be considered related to the technology, and that the technology held by B was completely separate from the technology claimed by OO Company, and submitted this information in the form of a lawyer's opinion.
Despite this, the police transferred B to the prosecutors’ office for violating the Industrial Technology Protection Law, and the prosecutors’ office also filed an indictment, but the court of first instance acquitted B on the grounds that, based on the relevant evidence, the technology held by B could not be viewed as the same as the technology for which the indictment was filed, and that verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court.