Daegu Attorney Referral Case | Establishing No Charge for a Client Implicated in Trade Secret Disclosure

The client, who operates a factory located in Daegu, was accused by a business partner on charges including trade secret disclosure.

The complainant claimed that the client had disclosed the company's trade secrets and had thereby obtained a personal benefit, and that this therefore also amounted to occupational breach of trust and interference with business.

The Daeryun Daegu attorney identified the substance of the complainant's complaint and established a strategy to rebut it.

Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act
Article 18 (2) Disclosure of Trade Secrets, etc.
(1) A person who, while knowing that a trade secret will be used in a foreign country or will be used for a foreign country, commits any of the following acts shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or by a fine not exceeding 1.5 billion won. However, where a fine is imposed, if an amount equivalent to ten times the property gain resulting from the violation exceeds 1.5 billion won, the person shall be punished by a fine of not less than two times and not more than ten times the property gain.
2. Acquiring a trade secret by theft, deception, intimidation, or other improper means

Criminal Act

Article 356 (Occupational Embezzlement and Breach of Trust)
A person who commits a crime under Article 355 in violation of an occupational duty shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.

Article 314 (Interference with Business)
(1) A person who interferes with the business of another by the method under Article 313 or by force shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or by a fine not exceeding 15 million won.
(2) The same punishment as in paragraph (1) shall apply to a person who interferes with the business of another by damaging a data processing device, such as a computer, or a special medium record, such as an electromagnetic record, or by inputting false information or improper commands into a data processing device, or by causing an obstruction to data processing by any other means.

The Daegu attorney argued that the client had not leaked the company's technology but had protected his own technology.

The client and the complainant are currently engaged in litigation concerning the company's shares.

The complainant claims that the technology of the client, the company's sole engineer, is the company's technology.

The Daegu attorney submitted as evidence a provision of the contract drawn up by the client and the complainant at the time of the company's establishment that stated, “the technology in question is entirely the property right of the client,” and emphasized that there had been no disclosure of the company's trade secret.

The Daegu attorney argued that, because the technology in question was not a trade secret, it did not amount to occupational breach of trust or interference with business, either.

The client who received a Daegu attorney referral was able to resolve the case with Daeryun's assistance.

The Daeryun Daegu attorney provided legal assistance tailored to the client's situation, including securing evidence and representation in court, in order to establish that there was no suspicion of crime.

Daeryun Law Firm has offices throughout the country, so you may use Daeryun's legal services anywhere in Korea.

If you are seeking an attorney referral in a situation such as the above, you may request assistance from the Daeryun 🔗Daegu attorney office.