Hair shop designer accused of stealing customer information from former company... Prosecution: “Not indictment”

The customer voluntarily visits the suspect’s business.
Prosecutors “I have never persuaded or ordered a refund”

A hair shop employee who was sent to the prosecution on charges of making unfair profits by using customer information after transferring to a competitor company was not indicted.

On March 18, the Cheonan Branch of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office dismissed Employee A, who was suspected of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Unfair Competition Prevention Act), as 'no charges'.

Mr. A was working as a designer at a franchise beauty salon in July of last year, but when he moved to a competitor, he is accused of stealing trade secrets, including customer lists, and using them for sales activities.

The company filed a complaint, claiming that it had suffered significant losses to its business due to Mr. A. The purpose is that Mr. A contacted customers and induced them to refund their memberships.

According to Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, if a company's trade secrets are taken out, the person may be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years or by a fine of up to 500 million won.

Mr. A denied all charges. It is claimed that customers contacted Mr. A voluntarily, and that they were never encouraged to move hair salons during this process.

The prosecution decided that the charges were not admissible. The prosecution said, “It is acknowledged that Mr. A used information he learned while working after leaving the company, but considering that a customer he was previously in contact with contacted Mr. A first, it cannot be seen that he used trade secrets for the purpose of causing damage to the company.”

Attorney Kim Hyun-soo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “Trade secret infringement applies when a trade secret is acquired or used for the purpose of making an illegal profit through the trade secret or causing damage to the holder of the trade secret.” He added, “We were able to receive a non-indictment by revealing that it was not confirmed that Mr. A persuaded or instructed customers to refund.”

Digital Content Team

[View full article]
Hair shop designer accused of stealing customer information from former company... Prosecutors “not indicted” (Shortcut)