A former Samsung Electronics Director General, who was put on trial on charges of stealing core technology from Samsung Electronics and its partner companies after moving to a Chinese semiconductor corporations, was again sought a 20-year prison term and a fine of 200 million won at the sentencing hearing in the remand trial.
The Criminal Division 10-1 of the Seoul High Court (High Court Judges Lee Sang-ho, Lee Jae-shin, and Lee Hye-ran) on the 2nd held a sentencing hearing in the remand trial for a former Samsung Electronics Director General surnamed Kim, who was indicted on charges of violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The hearing was held after the Supreme Court sent the case back, saying that data transfers among accomplices could constitute a separate crime, and prosecutors maintained the same heavy sentence sought at the first trial.
Prosecutors believe that after Kim moved to ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) in China, Kim uploaded Samsung Electronics' 18-nanometer DRAM process technology and Eugene Technology's semiconductor deposition equipment design drawings to a separate network-attached storage (NAS) server to use them in Chinese development.
The defense, however, argued that Kim, the former Director General, was not in a leading position in the crime and was excluded from the development process. Kim worked only at production plants and was far from core development, cooperated in identifying accomplices during the investigation, and, given the family's current financial situation, would have difficulty paying a large fine.
In the first trial, the court sentenced Kim to seven years in prison and a fine of 200 million won, and in the second trial, reduced the prison term to six years while maintaining the 200 million won fine. While the first and second trials found Kim guilty of uploading and using confidential data on a server, they determined that the exchange of data among accomplices was part of the final use process and did not constitute separate crimes of disclosure or acquisition.
However, in Feb., the Supreme Court overturned that view. It held that the following are distinct types that the law separately prohibits and thus cannot be lumped together: obtaining trade secrets; passing them to another accomplice; and actually using them. The court noted that responsibility for transferring data cannot be erased merely because it was "ultimately exchanged for use." Accordingly, the focus of the remand trial has been not only on whether Kim, the former Director General, sought to actually use the data, but also on how broadly Kim should be held responsible for the prior stages of transfer and sharing.
As for the two accomplices at the partner company, prosecutors sought prison terms of four years and six months and three years and six months, respectively, at the remand sentencing hearing on the 9th. Kim's side asked the court to extend the sentencing hearing to prove that Kim, the former Director General, cooperated with the investigation.