The Supreme Court has determined that the technology for an eco-friendly ultra-pure water system used in semiconductor manufacturing qualifies as industrial technology. Therefore, leaking related materials constitutes a violation of the Industrial Technology Protection Act.
On May 14, the Supreme Court's second division, led by Justice Kwon Young-jun, overturned a lower court's three-year prison sentence for an individual identified as A, who was charged with violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, as well as breach of trust.
A, who was responsible for managing the construction of the ultra-pure water system at Samsung Engineering (now Samsung E&A), was accused of leaking files containing design templates that automatically calculate optimal parameters for the ultra-pure water system, control logic for automation, operational conditions, and interlock information. This was done in preparation for his move to a Chinese semiconductor consulting firm.
Despite submitting a confidentiality agreement regarding the specifications and design documents of the ultra-pure water system, A allegedly retained these documents instead of returning or destroying them, leading to charges of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. He was also accused of causing financial damage to Samsung Engineering by leaking these documents for personal gain.
Both the first and second trials found A guilty of all charges except for the violation of the Industrial Technology Protection Act, sentencing him to three years in prison.
The court stated regarding the Industrial Technology Protection Act violation, "The evidence submitted by the prosecution does not sufficiently establish that the design and construction technology for the ultra-pure water system used by the victim company falls within the scope of advanced technology as defined by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy at the time of the incident."
The Ministry's guidelines categorize advanced technologies and products, and the technology in question was claimed to be part of the 'plant engineering sector' under 'water resources (major category)/desalination (middle category)/membrane separation (sub-category)/optimal design technology for high-efficiency RO systems.' The key issue in the appeal was the interpretation of the middle category 'desalination.'
The second trial explained, "The meaning of 'desalination' in the middle category refers to freshwater produced from seawater desalination, thus interpreting the 'optimal design technology for high-efficiency RO systems' as detailed technology related to seawater desalination. However, the technology in this case pertains to producing ultra-pure water for semiconductors from industrial water, which is unrelated to 'optimal design technology for high-efficiency RO systems' concerning seawater desalination."
However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in its judgment of not guilty regarding the Industrial Technology Protection Act, stating, "The lower court misunderstood the legal principles regarding the scope of 'technologies that fall under advanced technology' as defined by the old Industrial Technology Protection Act and the Industrial Development Act."
The court further elaborated, "Considering the legislative purposes of the Industrial Development Act and the old Industrial Technology Protection Act, the general meanings and usages of 'freshwater' and 'desalination,' and the potential impact of this technology on the development, production, distribution, or use of products or services related to 'optimal design technology for high-efficiency RO systems,' the meaning of 'freshwater' in the middle category includes not only cases where the treated water's purpose is 'freshwater' but also cases where the source water is freshwater."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.