Accomplices who leaked technology overseas should be punished separately for the act of exchanging trade secrets during the crime, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court. On the 1st of March, the Supreme Court’s 3rd division (Presiding Justice Oh Seok-jun) recently overturned a lower court’s acquittal decision, deciding instead on a guilty verdict.
Seven defendants who worked at a camera module inspection equipment company were tried on charges of leaking the company’s trade secrets. They exchanged programming semiconductor schematics and parts lists through KakaoTalk group messenger and email. Some of them handed these over to accomplices who moved to a Chinese company.
Both the first and second instances found them guilty and sentenced each defendant to suspended prison terms of 1-2 years. The court noted, “They used the leaked trade secrets for development after moving to a Chinese company and then returning to domestic corporations,” emphasizing that it was a significant crime that wasted substantial time and resources invested in research and development, negatively impacting national competitiveness.
However, the lower court ruled that the act of the seven accomplices exchanging materials with each other was merely a “means of using the trade secrets” and could not be separately punished. The court believed that exchanging materials was not the crime itself but a means to commit the crime; thus, it didn’t constitute a separate violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, apart from the ‘use’ of trade secrets.
Contrary to this, the Supreme Court did not accept the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court stated, “Regardless of whether there was a conspiracy to use the trade secrets together, those who transferred and received them could constitute a violation under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.” The court highlighted the legislative intent to strengthen the protection of corporate trade secrets, emphasizing the importance of considering this fully.
The Supreme Court reasoned that ‘use’ of trade secrets does not necessarily imply ‘disclosure’; thus, separate punishment was justified. It noted that a person already aware of the trade secrets through job-related duties can use them without separate acquisition acts. Furthermore, when trade secrets are disclosed and used, the illegality is greater.
The court also pointed out potential imbalances in punishment if sharing materials between accomplices is not separately punished. Someone who fails to use the received trade secrets would be considered an attempted offender and receive a reduced sentence, whereas a mere transmitter, with potentially more malicious intent, might receive a lighter punishment.