Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act Assistance Case | Client Charged With Unfair Competition, Non-Prosecution

This is the background of the case as understood by the attorney.

The client found employment immediately upon becoming an adult and worked at one company for more than five years.

He held a sales position, so he frequently met and communicated with customers directly.

After the client left the company, however, customers who had placed deep trust in him began terminating transactions or canceling contracts.

The former employer's representative then reported the client for a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, alleging that the client had diverted the customer list and induced the cancellation of contracts.

Feeling that this was unfair, the client sought out an attorney with extensive experience in the fair trade field to obtain legal assistance and respond.

However, not all corporate information or internal materials are recognized as trade secrets; they may be recognized as trade secrets only when they satisfy the requirements for establishment, such as non-public status and economic usefulness.

If it is found that a person obtained an improper benefit using a trade secret or disclosed it without authorization, that person may be subject to criminal punishment under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

The relevant levels of punishment are as follows.

The cancellation of transactions by customers, which the opposing party took issue with, was not the result of inducement or persuasion by the client but rather the customers' voluntary choice.

The customers had conducted transactions because they had a deep trust in the client, so they cancelled the transactions when the client resigned.

The attorney collected and submitted statements from the customers and emphasized that the cancellation of transactions was the customers' voluntary choice.

When the client resigned, they handed over all of the customer data they had managed to the company and left.

The customer data they had managed while employed was therefore not leaked outside the company at all.

The attorney collected and submitted statements from the employee who received the handover, among other materials, and emphasized that there had been no leak of the customer data.

The opposing party also claimed that the client had leaked customer data and solicited customers, but submitted no particular evidence.

There was no evidence other than the fact that customers had canceled their transactions after the client's resignation.

The attorney emphasized that there was no objective evidence to prove the client's charges.

This was an account of a client who was unjustly accused of disclosing trade secrets and filed against, but received a non-prosecution decision with the attorney's help.

As shown here, when facing criminal charges for violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, properly identifying the scope of the trade secret and the unlawful act, and collecting evidence, can be important.

At Daeryun Law Firm, attorneys with expertise in the relevant law provide close assistance, actively collecting evidence and preparing a response from the early stage of the case.

If you are facing a similar issue, we hope you will obtain help through a 🔗legal consultation appointment.