South Korea's Supreme Court has ruled that sharing trade secrets among accomplices during the process of leaking advanced camera module inspection technology should be punished as a separate crime.
According to legal circles on the 1st, the Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Oh Seok-jun) recently overturned a lower court ruling that sentenced B, an executive at domestic company A, to two years in prison on charges including violation of the Industrial Technology Protection Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (overseas disclosure of trade secrets), and breach of fiduciary duty. The case was remanded to Seoul High Court.
The defendants are accused of leaking core components including grabbers used in Company A's camera module inspection equipment in 2022. They allegedly exchanged related materials through KakaoTalk group chats, email, and USB drives, and used them to develop camera module inspection equipment for Apple at Chinese company Jiangsu Lead. Some materials were found to have been transferred with knowledge that they would be delivered to foreign parties or used overseas.
The first trial applied the "use" provision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (overseas disclosure of trade secrets) to the overseas leak charges. Seven employees including B received suspended prison sentences. However, the court determined that disclosure was already included in the use of trade secrets. Accordingly, it acquitted the defendants of Industrial Technology Protection Act violations and Unfair Competition Prevention Act violations related to trade secret disclosure. The second trial upheld this ruling. B initially received a two-year suspended sentence with three years' probation but was sentenced to two years in prison at the second trial.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that Unfair Competition Prevention Act violations for trade secret disclosure should be treated as a separate crime. The Court stated, "The Unfair Competition Prevention Act defines 'acquisition,' 'use,' and 'disclosure to third parties' of trade secrets as independent crimes," adding that "the act of using trade secrets with knowledge of such conduct is also defined as an independent crime." The Supreme Court explained that trade secret disclosure and acquisition among accomplices constitute separate offenses, and charges related to trade secret disclosure under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act must be judged separately.
Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act stipulates punishment for acts committed with the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits or causing harm to trade secret holders, including acquiring, using, or disclosing trade secrets to third parties.