Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
No retroactive punishment for possession demanded for return before the 2019 amendment
Supreme Court, Apr. 30, 2026, 2025Do21522 (judgment)
Case name: 산업기술의유출방지및보호에관한법률위반·부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반(영업비밀국외누설등)·업무상배임·부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person was required by a trade secret holder to delete or return the secret before Article 18(1)(1)(c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act took effect on 9 July 2019, may continued possession of that secret be punished under that provision, even if the possession continued after the effective date?
Holding
It may not. The Court held that both being demanded to delete or return the secret and continuing to hold it are elements of the offence under Article 18(1)(1)(c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, so punishing possession demanded before 9 July 2019 breaches the prohibition on retroactive criminal law stated in Article 13(1) of the Constitution and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act. Continuation of that possession past the effective date makes no difference.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러므로 부정경쟁방지법 시행일 이전에 영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀을 삭제하거나 반환할 것을 요구받고 그 영업비밀을 보유한 행위를 처벌하는 것은 형벌법규의 소급효금지 원칙에 위배된다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, punishing an act of possessing a trade secret after having been requested by the holder of the trade secret to delete or return the trade secret before the date of entry into force of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act violates the principle of prohibition against retroactive application of penal statutes.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 1, 피고인 2에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다. 검사의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court. All appeals by the prosecutor are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이처럼 부정경쟁방지법은 ‘영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀의 삭제나 반환을 요구받을 것’과 ‘그 영업비밀을 계속 보유할 것’ 모두를 부정경쟁방지법 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 위반죄의 구성요건으로 정하고 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Thus, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act prescribes both 'having been requested by the holder of the trade secret to delete or return the trade secret' and 'continuing to possess the trade secret' as constituent elements of the offence of violating Article 18 (1) subparagraph 1 (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
Factors
- ‘부정한 이익을 얻거나 영업비밀 보유자에게 손해를 입힐 목적으로 그 영업비밀을 외국에서 사용하거나 외국에서 사용될 것임을 알면서 영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀을 삭제하거나 반환할 것을 요구받고도 이를 계속 보유하는 행위’에 관하여는 처벌규정이 없었다
- 일정한 형벌에 처한다고 정하여, 이를 별도의 범죄구성요건으로 규정하였다
- 헌법 제13조 제1항 전단과 형법 제1조 제1항이 형벌법규의 소급효금지 원칙을 밝히고 있고
- 부정경쟁방지법 부칙 제1조에 의하면, 부정경쟁방지법 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 시행일 이후 발생한 위반행위가 처벌의 대상이 된다
- 부정경쟁방지법 시행일 이후까지 그 영업비밀 보유행위가 계속되었다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• There was no punitive provision as to the 'act of continuing to possess a trade secret, even after having been requested by the holder of the trade secret to delete or return the trade secret, for the purpose of obtaining an unfair benefit or inflicting damage on the holder of the trade secret, by using the trade secret in a foreign country or knowing that it will be used in a foreign country'
• It provided that such conduct shall be punished by a specified penalty, and prescribed it as a separate constituent element of the offense
• The first part of Article 13 (1) of the Constitution and Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act set forth the principle of prohibition against retroactive application of penal statutes
• Under Article 1 of the Additional Provisions of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, acts of violation occurring after the date of entry into force of Article 18 (1) subparagraph 1 (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act become subject to punishment
• The same conclusion cannot be otherwise even where the act of possessing the trade secret continued until after the date of entry into force of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
부정경쟁방지법 시행일 이후까지 그 영업비밀 보유행위가 계속되었다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
The same conclusion cannot be otherwise even where the act of possessing the trade secret continued until after the date of entry into force of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a trade secret holder demands deletion or return afresh on or after 9 July 2019, may the possession begun before that date be punished in full, or only from the new demand?
The remand judgment of the Suwon District Court on Defendants 1 and 2 will show how the date of the holder's demand is fixed on the record. Any amendment to Article 18(1)(1)(c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act or to its supplementary provision, and any later decision on whether the former Article 18(1) reached continuing possession, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading may view the interpretation of the newly created offense's elements and temporal reach as a new standard, while the independent reading may withhold classification because the supplied text gives no explicit comparison with prior precedents.
부정경쟁방지법 시행일 이후까지 그 영업비밀 보유행위가 계속되었다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon District Court, sitting on appeal in its judgment of 21 November 2025 (2024No5872), treated the offence under Article 18(1)(1)(c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act as a continuing offence whose conduct element is the continued possession of the trade secret, while 'being demanded to delete or return it' meant nothing more than the defendant's state or status. On that premise it held that the demand need not have been made after the amended Act took effect, and convicted Defendants 1 and 2 of continuing to hold the secrets of Company A after 9 July 2019.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the 2019 amendment made the demand to delete or return and the continued holding alike elements of the offence, so punishing possession demanded before 9 July 2019 was barred by the prohibition on retroactive criminal law. On the record it found only the trade secret undertaking Defendant 1 signed with his resignation on 11 December 2017, Defendant 2's return and destruction confirmation of 27 November 2018 and the deletion demand of 14 January 2019, with no material showing a demand after the effective date, so the court below had misread the law. It reversed the whole judgment as to Defendants 1 and 2, because their remaining convictions stood in concurrence under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and one sentence had been imposed, remanded that part to the Suwon District Court, and found no error in the acquittals of Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 Company.
Distinguishing conditions
- A demand to delete or return the secret made on or after 9 July 2019, so that the punished conduct falls within the period the supplementary provision covers.
- Acquisition, use or disclosure to a third party knowing that the secret will be used abroad, which the former Article 18(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act already punished.
- An appeal concerning Defendant 3 or Defendant 4 Company, where the Court found no misreading of the law on joint principals by conspiracy or departure from a conspiracy.
Record verification notes
Fix the dates first: when the defendant signed the undertaking or confirmation, when the holder made its demand, and whether any demand falls on or after 9 July 2019, since the Court looked for material of a demand after that date and found none. Then check whether the conviction under challenge is joined with another conviction in concurrence under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, because the Court reversed the whole judgment as to Defendants 1 and 2 for that reason.
From the official text
Points at issue
2019. 1. 8. 개정되고 2019. 7. 9. 시행된 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 위반죄의 구성요건 / 위 법 시행일 이전에 영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀을 삭제하거나 반환할 것을 요구받고 그 영업비밀을 보유한 행위를 위 규정으로 처벌하는 것이 형벌법규의 소급효금지 원칙에 위배되는지 여부(적극) 및 위 법 시행일 이후까지 그 영업비밀 보유행위가 계속되었더라도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Constituent elements of the offence of violating Article 18 (1) subparagraph 1 (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, which was amended on January 8, 2019 and entered into force on July 9, 2019 / Whether punishing, under the foregoing provision, an act of possessing a trade secret after having been requested by the holder of the trade secret to delete or return the trade secret before the date of entry into force of the Act violates the principle of prohibition against retroactive application of penal statutes (affirmative), and whether the same applies even where the act of possessing the trade secret continued until after the date of entry into force of the Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률(2019. 1. 8. 법률 제16204호로 개정되기 전의 것)은 제18조 제1항에서 ‘부정한 이익을 얻거나 영업비밀 보유자에게 손해를 입힐 목적으로 그 영업비밀을 외국에서 사용하거나 외국에서 사용될 것임을 알면서 취득·사용 또는 제3자에게 누설한 행위’ 등을 처벌 대상으로 규정하고 있었을 뿐, ‘부정한 이익을 얻거나 영업비밀 보유자에게 손해를 입힐 목적으로 그 영업비밀을 외국에서 사용하거나 외국에서 사용될 것임을 알면서 영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀을 삭제하거나 반환할 것을 요구받고도 이를 계속 보유하는 행위’에 관하여는 처벌규정이 없었다. 이후 2019. 1. 8. 개정되고 2019. 7. 9. 시행된 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률(이하 ‘부정경쟁방지법’이라 한다) 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목은 ‘부정한 이익을 얻거나 영업비밀 보유자에게 손해를 입힐 목적으로 그 영업비밀을 외국에서 사용하거나 외국에서 사용될 것임을 알면서 영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀을 삭제하거나 반환할 것을 요구받고도 이를 계속 보유하는 행위’를 일정한 형벌에 처한다고 정하여, 이를 별도의 범죄구성요건으로 규정하였다. 이처럼 부정경쟁방지법은 ‘영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀의 삭제나 반환을 요구받을 것’과 ‘그 영업비밀을 계속 보유할 것’ 모두를 부정경쟁방지법 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 위반죄의 구성요건으로 정하고 있다. 헌법 제13조 제1항 전단과 형법 제1조 제1항이 형벌법규의 소급효금지 원칙을 밝히고 있고, 부정경쟁방지법 부칙 제1조에 의하면, 부정경쟁방지법 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 시행일 이후 발생한 위반행위가 처벌의 대상이 된다. 그러므로 부정경쟁방지법 시행일 이전에 영업비밀 보유자로부터 영업비밀을 삭제하거나 반환할 것을 요구받고 그 영업비밀을 보유한 행위를 처벌하는 것은 형벌법규의 소급효금지 원칙에 위배된다. 부정경쟁방지법 시행일 이후까지 그 영업비밀 보유행위가 계속되었다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 1, 피고인 2에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다. 검사의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court. All appeals by the prosecutor are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제13조 제1항, 형법 제1조 제1항, 구 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률(2019. 1. 8. 법률 제16204호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제18조 제1항[현행 제18조 제1항 제1호 (가)목 참조], 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 제18조 제1항 제1호 (다)목, 부칙(2019. 1. 8.) 제1조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger