20 years in the United States, 10 years in Taiwan, 7 years in South Korea

That is exactly what it means.

These are the actual maximum sentences handed down in cases involving the leakage of critical information, such as national core technologies and state secrets.

What does this mean?

What do you think about the country of South Korea?

These days, with all this talk about K-whatever,
you may have thought at least once,
“Aren’t we pretty famous?”

Well, I suppose that is roughly true.

With BTS and BLACKPINK and all that,
they seem to appear on screens quite often.

But I don’t think the entire population is that deeply into it.

The main consumers of idol culture are probably
the mainstream internet users,

and because they receive a lot of attention from them,
they are naturally mentioned a little more often on the internet.

Honestly,
if I went to some rural grandmother in Korea right now
and asked her to bet yes or no on whether she knows BTS or BLACKPINK,

I think I would bet on no.

If even domestically it is ambiguous,

what about overseas??

Hmm..

But here’s the thing.

Whether domestically or overseas,
they will have
some kind of electronic device in their hands.

And there is a very high probability
that one of two things will be in their hands.

Apple and Samsung.

I can’t help but think that Samsung’s Galaxy
is really contributing to South Korea’s national prestige.
Of course, many people would agree,

but when it comes to the question of
“How well are they actually doing?”
the answer isn’t so easy.

Well, smartphones are something everyone uses these days,
and when I see a foreigner using a Galaxy,
rather than thinking, “Oh, they’re using Samsung,”
I just think that Samsung seems to be doing well.

It’s quite ambiguous.

Because it is so common and natural,
you get the feeling that
we don’t realize just how well they are doing.

On the other hand,
BTS and BLACKPINK
have, until now,
benefited from the fact that it has not been common
for Asians to achieve such high levels of success in the Western music industry.

So I think there is also a feeling that
they appear even more impressive than their actual influence might suggest.

Of course, it is a fact that both are remarkable.
I have no intention of putting down the singers.

So, back to the Galaxy.

What do you need
to make that Galaxy?

Well, obviously, semiconductor chips.

The government also considers
the semiconductor industry to be the nation’s number one core strategic industry
and strictly protects its technology through the legal system.

It is also handled very strictly at the sites themselves.
Even security personnel who monitor safety risks
for workers at semiconductor equipment facilities
have stickers attached to their smartphone camera lenses

to prevent them from taking photographs.

Everyone understands the reason
and participates without complaint.

Security is treated as importantly as safety.

And
I want to look at the reason why that security exists,
namely, the leakage of critical semiconductor technologies.

The article will proceed as follows.

First, I will cover major cases of semiconductor core technology leaks in South Korea and the resulting court decisions,

and then I will briefly look at cases from other countries.

The first title is
South Korea: 7 Years
What kind of case was it?

Samsung Electronics Former Executive Kim: China CXMT DRAM National Core Technology Leakage Case

First trial: 7 years in prison Samsung Electronics’
18-nanometer DRAM process technology, developed with an investment of approximately KRW 1.6 trillion, was leaked to and improperly used by China’s CXMT.

The court recognized the technology as a national core technology.

Then
another question naturally follows:
what happens if it is semiconductor technology, but the court does not recognize the technology as a national core technology?

I have prepared a case below that would be useful as an answer to that question.

The title said these were the maximum sentences in each country, right?

It doesn’t mean
“this is the maximum sentence that could be imposed.”

These are sentences that were actually handed down.

In other words,
there has not yet been a case in which a sentence of more than 7 years was handed down.

2 years and 6 months, 2 years and 4 months, 3 years, 6 years.

They took technology that Samsung,
a company, spent more than KRW 10 trillion to develop,
and smuggled it overseas, especially to China,
and the amounts they reportedly received were
KRW 1 billion, 2 billion, or 3 billion.

That is a lot if you think it is a lot,
and not much if you think it is not much.
Wait, what? You think KRW 1–3 billion is not much?

Yes.
Someone sold the core technology of an industry
that supports an entire country,
and you didn’t even create it yourself.
You were a researcher.
Where exactly did you get the right to sell it?

It can be proven that the company spent more than KRW 10 trillion to develop the technology,
and if the estimated damage from 2020 to 2025 reaches KRW 23 trillion,

I think one could put it that way.

Now let’s look at
what kinds of technologies are being leaked.

Year	Total Industrial Technology Leaks	National Core Technology Leaks	Semiconductor Field
2020	17 cases	9 cases	6 cases
2021	22 cases	10 cases	5 cases
2022	20 cases	4 cases	9 cases
2023	23 cases	5 cases	15 cases
2024	23 cases	4 cases	6 cases

Let me explain the table.

As expected, semiconductors account for quite a significant portion.

Everyone knows that national core technologies encompass semiconductor technologies.

However,
there are also areas of semiconductor-related technology that are classified as industrial technology but are not national core technologies,
and there are even technologies whose classification is ambiguous as to whether they are included in industrial technology at all.

The problem is that if such ambiguously classified technology is absolutely essential to semiconductor manufacturing,
it is still unclear how such technology should be legally treated.

Another problem is that
when courts try to judge semiconductor technology leakage crimes
using laws that were created before semiconductor technology had reached its current level of development,

it seems the courts also face considerable difficulties.

The case below is, I think, a good case to use as an answer to the question above.

Samsung Engineering Semiconductor Ultra-Pure Water Technology Leakage Case

First, let me briefly explain what is needed to manufacture semiconductors.

Here we have a wide, flat plate called a wafer, which looks somewhat like a pizza.
It is the platform on which semiconductors are built.

Dozens or hundreds of semiconductors are placed on it.
Is it like a topping?

Have you ever seen people working at a semiconductor manufacturing site?
You may have seen them on the news wearing what looks like a spacesuit.

They are cleanroom suits.

Because semiconductor manufacturing facilities do not allow even a single speck of dust,
they have no choice but to wear them even when they are drenched in sweat.

Then that plate I mentioned above,
the wafer, needs to be washed thoroughly too, right?

The water used to wash these wafers is called ultra-pure water.
Water that has had all impurities removed — essentially pure water itself.

It is not an element contained in the finished semiconductor,

but it is
absolutely indispensable for semiconductor production.

And to produce ultra-pure water,
desalination technology is essential.

It was also included in advanced technology under industrial technology.

In 2019, Samsung Engineering employee A moved to a Chinese semiconductor-related company and leaked design documents and other materials concerning an ultra-pure water system for semiconductor manufacturing.

He was soon brought to trial and received a sentence.

He was sentenced to 3 years in prison for leaking trade secrets and occupational breach of trust.

Doesn’t something seem a little strange?

Yes. The charges did not include industrial technology leakage.

This was because the court at the time interpreted the leaked desalination technology as not constituting industrial technology.

Additional charges should have been brought,
but they could not be brought under the circumstances.

Fortunately,
the Supreme Court completely overturned the decisions that had maintained an acquittal on the industrial technology leakage charge in both the first and second trials,
and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Simply put,
this was the court’s reasoning.

First, even at that time, desalination technology was classified as advanced technology.

However, the court seems to have considered the following:

If we say “desalination technology,” doesn’t that mean using seawater and desalinating it?
But this technology uses fresh water to produce ultra-pure water.
Can it therefore be considered advanced technology included within industrial technology?

As a result, both the first and second trials
ruled that it did not violate the Industrial Technology Protection Act.

The Supreme Court, however, said,
“No, it should not be viewed so narrowly,”

and overturned the decisions of the first and second trials.

At first glance,
it seems like both sides had a point.

How much of a headache must this have been for both sides?

Fortunately, after that,
the law underwent major revisions.

Of course,
the punishments were also strengthened.

Category	Before the 2019 Amendment	After the August 20, 2019 Amendment
Article 36(1)	No separate provision punishing national core technology violations with 3 years or more	If a person knowingly commits an act under Article 14(1)–(12) knowing that national core technology will be used abroad → imprisonment with labor for at least 3 years + a fine of up to KRW 1.5 billion
Article 36(2)	For certain violations of Article 14 committed with knowledge that industrial technology will be used abroad → up to 15 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 1.5 billion	Basic structure maintained → up to 15 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 1.5 billion. However, cases falling under paragraph 1 are excluded
Article 36(3)	Violation of Article 14 → up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 1 billion	Violation of Article 14(1)–(11) → up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 1 billion
Article 36(4)	No corresponding provision	Violation of Article 14(12)–(13) → up to 3 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 300 million
Article 36(5)	Confiscation provision	Confiscation and collection provisions revised for property obtained through crimes under paragraphs 1–4
Article 36(7)	The scope of attempted offenses differed from the current provision	Attempted offenses under paragraphs 1–3 expressly punishable

It looks like even the areas that had previously been left unaddressed have now been filled in.

Going forward,
we can gradually fill in the remaining gaps.

For reference, Articles 14(1)–(12) include matters such as leaking national core technologies or violating confidentiality obligations.
Violations of these provisions are subject to punishment.

Now let’s take a look at
how other countries have punished industrial spies,
that is, technology thieves.

Country	Leaked Technology	Case	Actual Sentence	Source
🇺🇸 United States	Core aircraft manufacturing technology & trade secrets	Yanjun Xu case	20 years in prison	U.S. Department of Justice
🇹🇼 Taiwan	TSMC 2nm semiconductor process technology	TSMC technology leakage case	10 years in prison	Taiwanese court
🇰🇷 South Korea	Samsung Electronics 18nm DRAM core technology	China CXMT leakage case	6 years and 4 months in prison	Seoul High Court
🇨🇳 China	Huawei HiSilicon Wi-Fi chip technology	尊湃 (Zunpai) case	6 years in prison	Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court
🇯🇵 Japan	AIST advanced fluorine compound technology	Leakage to Chinese company	2 years and 6 months in prison + 4 years suspended sentence	Tokyo District Court

There is TSMC,
which is called one of the two giants in the memory chip industry alongside Samsung.

10 years.

China’s sentence is surprisingly short.

Well, China is on the side of stealing technology rather than exporting it, after all.

You think that’s too harsh a way to describe China?

Rank	Country	Number of Leaks
1	🇨🇳 China	67 cases
2	🇺🇸 United States	11 cases
3	🇹🇼 Taiwan	4 cases
4	🇻🇳 Vietnam	3 cases
4	🇯🇵 Japan	3 cases
6	Others	11 cases

Country-by-country figures based on National Police Agency data, 2019–2024
Independently compiled

Huh?

Even the case in the table above,
the 20-year sentence in the United States, involved a Chinese national.

It is known as the Yanjun Xu case.

He began working for China’s Ministry of State Security in 2003,

and from 2013 to 2018
he stole aircraft technology

and was arrested by the FBI
just before he could hand the information over to the Chinese government.

It wasn’t even an American selling information to China.
It was a case in which a Chinese national operated in the United States and collected information before being arrested.

To compare it with South Korea,

would it be like
a Chinese national working at SK hynix
selling information to China?

And this is not just an example.
It actually happened.

That woman went to Huawei.

We should never view any nationality through prejudice,

but based on the data,

can’t we at least say
“this one ranks first”?

I have also seen people make an argument like this.

Why not designate certain technologies as state secrets altogether
and prosecute them under espionage laws?

Of course, if that were to happen,
Samsung, a private company,

would be dealing with state secrets,
so the process would become complicated.

On the other hand,

if that happened,

the maximum statutory sentence would become the death penalty,

so I sometimes wonder
whether that might be a way to jump across a difficult road in one leap.