In a major semiconductor trade secret case involving leaked Samsung technology, the Korean Supreme Court clarified an important criminal law principle:

> Using a trade secret and acquiring or disclosing it are legally distinct offenses — and must be analyzed separately.



The ruling could significantly affect how prosecutors charge trade secret crimes going forward.


—

⚖️ Court & Case

Court: Supreme Court of Korea

Division: Criminal Division 3

Decision Date: January 15, 2026

Case No.: 2025도13231

Outcome: Partial reversal and remand to Seoul High Court



—

🧾 Background

A former Samsung Electronics executive (Kim) was accused of leaking:

– 18nm DRAM semiconductor process technology

– Classified as a national core technology


The information was allegedly used by Chinese semiconductor company:

ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT)


Another defendant was accused of leaking semiconductor deposition equipment design data.



—

🏛 Lower Court Decisions

1st Instance

Kim: 7 years imprisonment + ₩200 million fine

Co-defendant: 2 years 6 months

Some trade secret acquisition/disclosure charges → Acquitted


2nd Instance

Kim: Sentence reduced to 6 years

Court considered:

Difficulty finding domestic employment after dismissal

Family livelihood considerations


Acquittals on some acquisition/disclosure counts were maintained


Lower courts viewed the sharing of secrets between co-conspirators as merely a step toward “use,” not separate acquisition/disclosure crimes.


—

🧠 Supreme Court’s Key Ruling

The Supreme Court disagreed.

It held:

– Trade secret acquisition

– Trade secret use

– Trade secret disclosure


→ Each can independently constitute a crime.

They are not automatically absorbed into one another.


—

🔍 Why This Matters

The Court pointed out a potential imbalance:

If someone starts using a trade secret but fails → attempted offense (mitigated punishment possible)

But if someone only shares it without attempting use → completed offense (no mitigation)


That creates a strange outcome:

> A person who takes steps toward actual use could receive lighter punishment than someone who merely shared it.



The Court emphasized that courts must carefully distinguish:

– Attempted use (미수)

– Completed acquisition/disclosure (기수)


Each offense must be analyzed under its own elements.


—

📚 Legal Significance

This decision strengthens prosecutorial flexibility in high-tech industrial espionage cases and clarifies that:

Trade secret crimes are not one single bundled offense

Courts must examine the legal elements independently

Charging decisions in semiconductor and national core technology cases may become more nuanced


For companies in strategic industries, especially semiconductor manufacturing, this ruling reinforces that internal sharing alone may trigger criminal liability, even absent successful commercial use.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=216515