Engineers working in advanced technology fields such as semiconductors, batteries, and displays are increasingly visiting law firms before changing jobs. They want to check whether materials they handled at their previous workplace remain on personal laptops or in the cloud, and whether the work they will take on at a new company could turn into a dispute over infringement of their former employer's trade secrets. As courts hand down tougher sentences in technology leakage cases, anxiety is growing that a job change could inadvertently turn someone into a criminal.
In the past, legal action often followed after corporations raised issues against retirees or competitors. Recently, however, individuals switching jobs are seeking legal advice first. In industries handling national core technologies—such as semiconductors, batteries, displays, and plants—there is rising demand to confirm whether a job move itself could escalate into criminal risk.
Corporations are also responding. Corporations seeking to prevent leaks of core technology are overhauling their trade secret management systems, and companies looking to hire talent from competitors are consulting law firms during recruitment to avoid legal liability. As the judicial trend toward harshly punishing technology leakage crimes becomes clearer, corporations, job changers, and hiring companies are all moving to manage risks in advance.
◇ "Suspended sentences are a thing of the past"… tough stance from first trial to Supreme Court
There is a growing number of offenders who obtain corporations' trade secrets by improper means or leak them externally in violation of confidentiality obligations. According to data submitted by Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Park Gee-won from the Ministry of Justice, the number of defendants indicted for violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act over the past five years rose from 39 in 2021 to 61 in 2024, and 93 last year.
Court sentences are also becoming stricter. In Apr., a former Samsung Electronics researcher surnamed Jeon was sentenced in the first trial to seven years in prison on charges including violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act. Jeon was brought to trial on suspicion of leaking Samsung Electronics' DRAM semiconductor process technology to a Chinese corporation.
In the same month, a former Samsung Electronics Director General surnamed Kim was sentenced in a remand trial to six years and four months in prison and a fine of 200 million won on the same charges. The court said, "Kim improperly obtained Samsung Electronics' trade secrets and handed them over to a Chinese firm," adding, "Such acts seriously undermine market transaction order and can adversely affect national competitiveness."
A legal industry source said, "In the past, suspended sentences were not uncommon even in technology leakage cases, but recently there is a need to consider the possibility of actual prison terms," adding, "Courts are actively reflecting the ripple effects of technology leakage on the domestic industry as a whole in sentencing."
If it finds that lower courts' punishments are too light, the Supreme Court sometimes sends the case back for retrial. In May, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had sentenced a former Samsung Engineering, now Samsung E&A, employee identified as A to three years in prison on charges including violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
The Supreme Court found it wrong that the lower court had concluded Samsung Engineering's ultrapure water system design and construction technology did not qualify as advanced technology under the Industrial Technology Protection Act. As a result, A could face a heavier sentence in the remand trial.
◇ Job changers and hiring companies say, "legal review first"
As prison sentences continue, corporations are welcoming the development. The tougher the penalties, the more vigilant internal employees become, and a preventive effect against similar crimes can also be expected.
At the same time, demand is growing to assess risks in advance through law firms. In the past, legal reviews centered on some large corporations, but recently requests for advice from small and midsize businesses have also become active. The aim is to block potential leakage risks and refine access rights to documents, overhauling trade secret management systems to meet legal standards.
In trials over technology leakage, defendants typically argue that "the information in question was not a trade secret to begin with." If the victim corporation cannot prove it has routinely kept the information confidential, it may be put at a disadvantage in court. That is why corporations seek to improve management systems in advance.
A legal industry source said, "Recently, corporations handling advanced technology often conduct legal reviews whenever a job change occurs," adding, "Not only the side losing talent but also the hiring company is cautious out of concern that criminal liability could arise."
Employees preparing to change jobs have also become more cautious. One attorney said, "Individuals often seek advice out of concern that unforeseen legal issues may be discovered." They want to check whether materials used at a previous job remain on personal storage devices or in the cloud, and whether the tasks at the new company could conflict with their former employer's trade secrets.
To prevent key personnel from moving to competitors, more corporations are inserting noncompete clauses into employment contracts. It is also possible to apply for a preliminary injunction to restrict a particular individual from working in the same industry.
However, courts do not accept this easily. Another legal industry source said, "A noncompete injunction can restrict the constitutionally protected freedom to choose one's occupation," adding, "It must be proven that sufficient compensation has been provided to justify restricting a job change, or that urgent and substantial harm would occur that is difficult to compensate with money."