CONTENTS
- 1. Technology Leakage | A Case in Which the Question Was Whether Industrial Technology Had Been Leaked
- - Overview of the Case
- 2. Technology Leakage | The Determinations of the First and Second Instances Concerning the Leakage of Industrial Technology
- 3. Technology Leakage | The Supreme Court's Determination on Whether the Material Constitutes Industrial Technology
- 4. Technology Leakage | The Significance of This Judgment
- - Daeryun's Strategy
1. Technology Leakage | A Case in Which the Question Was Whether Industrial Technology Had Been Leaked
In a matter concerning technology leakage, the Supreme Court held that the technologies for manufacturing glass frit for solar cell electrodes and paste for OLED sealing fall within the scope of the “advanced technologies” notified under Article 5 of the Industrial Development Act.
On that basis, it determined that there is a strong likelihood that they constitute “industrial technology” under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, found that the lower court's denial of this point and its acquittal on that part amounted to a misapprehension of the law, and reversed and remanded that part.
Overview of the Case
The defendant joined the victim company in 2006 and was responsible for developing the technologies for manufacturing glass frit for solar cells and paste for OLED sealing.
In December 2014, ahead of his resignation, the defendant removed approximately 1,200 technical documents (composition tables, experimental data, batch sheets, and the like) from the company's research center by storing them on a USB drive, transmitting them to his personal email, and printing them out.
These technologies fall within the advanced technology notice issued under Article 5 of the Industrial Development Act (the “amorphous/crystalline hybrid solar cell technology” and the “seal material technology”), and the victim company had them protected as industrial technology.
The prosecution, taking the view that the defendant had leaked industrial technology “for the purpose of obtaining a wrongful gain or causing harm,” indicted him on charges of violating the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology and the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, as well as occupational breach of trust.
2. Technology Leakage | The Determinations of the First and Second Instances Concerning the Leakage of Industrial Technology
Both the first instance and the appellate court found the defendant not guilty on the portion concerning the leakage of industrial technology.
The courts took the view that the materials the defendant removed “are difficult to regard as information containing the final composition ratios or core know-how necessary to manufacture finished products.”
They also held that, because it was difficult to conclude that the information was independently indispensable to product manufacturing, it did not constitute “industrial technology” under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology.
As for the remaining portions of “divulgence of trade secrets” and “occupational breach of trust,” the courts maintained the acquittals on the ground of insufficient evidence.
Ultimately, the courts dismissed the prosecution's arguments, taking the view that “the defendant's conduct may be unethical, but it is not subject to criminal punishment.”
3. Technology Leakage | The Supreme Court's Determination on Whether the Material Constitutes Industrial Technology
The Supreme Court stated that, under Article 2, Subparagraph 1, Item (b) of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, “technology falling within the scope of the advanced technologies notified under Article 5 of the Industrial Development Act” is regarded as industrial technology subject to protection.
That is, whether particular information constitutes industrial technology must be determined by comprehensively considering the following factors.
· whether it constitutes specific technical information necessary for the development, production, and dissemination of a product
· whether it gives an enterprise the potential for industrial development and the creation of added value
· the non-public nature of the information and the difficulty of obtaining it
The purport of this is that the determination should center not merely on the name of the technical material but on the technology's potential contribution to industry.
The Supreme Court took the view that the victim company's technical materials constitute “industrial technology” under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology.
The materials in this case were concrete research results, including experimental data, composition ratio tables, and temperature and crystallization graphs for manufacturing glass frit for solar cell electrodes and paste for OLED sealing, and they contained the core experimental results from the entire product development process.
The materials had not been disclosed to the public and were non-public information that could not be obtained without going through the victim company, and the victim company had received official confirmation from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy that the technology corresponded to an advanced technology under Article 5 of the Industrial Development Act.
Accordingly, the Court took the view that there is a strong likelihood that the materials in this case constitute “industrial technology” protected under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology.
On this basis, the Supreme Court determined that the lower court's denial of the materials' character as industrial technology on the ground that they “were not the final composition ratios” amounted to a misapprehension of the law and an incomplete deliberation, and it reversed and remanded the case.
However, the Court excluded certain materials that were difficult to regard as information held by the victim company, because they appeared to have been prepared by the defendant after he had left the victim company, and such materials were difficult to regard as industrial technology.
4. Technology Leakage | The Significance of This Judgment
This judgment is significant in that it expanded the scope of “industrial technology” under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology by centering on substantive content rather than form.
First, it established a basis for recognizing as industrial technology not only the completeness of a product or its final composition ratios but also the experimental and verification data from the stages preceding research and development.
Second, it clarified the connection with the advanced technologies notified under the Industrial Development Act, thereby confirming that the entire body of data an enterprise has accumulated within a government-notified technology area may receive legal protection.
Third, it emphasized the interpretation of, and the need to prove, the requirement of a leakage purpose (the “purpose of obtaining a wrongful gain or causing harm”), suggesting that both investigative agencies and enterprises need a more systematic approach to proving intent and purpose.
Daeryun's Strategy
Drawing on the legal reasoning of this judgment, Daeryun Law Firm LLP develops a strategy for technology leakage cases built on two axes: “recognition of the material as industrial technology” and “proof of the intent and purpose of the leakage.”
▶Precise Analysis of the Facts
In cooperation with the digital forensics center, we verify the timing, intent, and the specificity of the targeted information for the leakage based on the routes by which the materials were removed (USB, email, printouts), the metadata, and the log records.
We examine whether the content of the technology is connected to the advanced technologies notified under the Industrial Development Act.
▶Proof That the Material Constitutes Industrial Technology
Through the notice issued by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (Article 5 of the Industrial Development Act), the advanced technology confirmation, and the research and development records, we clarify the scope of legal protection for the technology.
We then emphasize that the technology is core data used directly in product manufacturing.
▶Legal Defense and Response Strategy
On the defendant's side, the defense centers on proving the “absence of a leakage purpose” and the existence of “independent research results.”
On the enterprise's side, we set out in writing that the leaked materials are subject to protection under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, and we assert the harm based on confidentiality management measures and the internal security system.
▶Strengthening the Internal Control System
Enterprises should strengthen their classification systems for security grades by technology, USB blocking and log monitoring, and procedures for recovering materials from departing employees.
In particular, where R&D data is connected to government-notified advanced technologies, an application for industrial technology confirmation and the establishment of confidentiality management rules are necessary.
This judgment set out a standard under which even data from the technology development stage may be subject to protection under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology.
For technology leakage cases, Daeryun Law Firm LLP brings together legal professionals experienced in industrial technology protection, including attorneys handling copyright matters, patent attorneys, and the digital forensics center, who provide integrated, one-stop support for technology protection and dispute response through ① the legal assessment of whether something constitutes industrial technology, ② proof of the intent and purpose of the leakage, and ③ advisory services on the enterprise's internal security system.
If you need legal assistance regarding technology leakage, you are welcome to use the firm's 🔗legal consultation booking, which accepts inquiries at any time and offers video and telephone consultations.
