A former employee who took process control software for semiconductor component manufacturing equipment from his previous employer and used it without authorization at a rival firm has been sentenced to prison, along with the rival company's chief executive.
Judge Kang Young-sun of the Suwon District Court's 14th criminal single-judge division recently sentenced the former development team leader of Company A to one year in prison on charges including breach of fiduciary duty, legal sources said on the 25th. The court also handed an eight-month prison term to the head of Company B, a competitor, who was indicted on charges of conspiring in the crime. Company B itself was fined 75 million won under a provision holding corporations liable alongside their employees.
"Strict punishment is needed to prevent the social losses caused by technology leaks and to remove the incentive for such crimes," Kang said. "The victimized company suffered substantial damage, yet the defendants have shown no remorse for their wrongdoing and have made no effort to repair the harm."
The defendant, who had been head of the equipment development team at Company A, a semiconductor component manufacturer, left the company in September 2017. He was indicted on charges of removing programmable logic controller (PLC) software and other materials without authorization as he departed, then using them after moving to Company B. The removed software contained specific process procedures, including equipment temperatures and gas injection volumes, and was identified as a core asset of Company A.
Company B had no capability to develop such software on its own. It modified only some communication modules in the PLC software taken from Company A and installed it on electronic equipment in a state more than 90% identical to the original. Through this, the company won a supply contract worth about 410 million won and reaped other improper gains.
During the trial, the former development team leader and Company B's chief executive denied the charges, arguing that Company A's software was itself merely a copy of another company's technology and therefore did not qualify as a trade secret.
The court, however, found that even if the victimized company had once referred to another firm's drawings, the software was an independent program developed over several years with enormous costs and manpower, and thus constituted a trade secret. It also recognized the company's measures to protect its technology, including requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements.
