YOON&YANG

On August 20, 2026, the National Assembly passed an amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the “Act”). The Amendment establishes, among other things, a statutory basis for penalizing brokers who facilitate trade secret misappropriation. It expressly identifies hacking as an unlawful means of acquiring trade secrets and recognizes the introduction, arrangement, or inducement of trade secret misappropriation as independent forms of infringement subject to criminal penalties. It also clarifies the basis for penalizing the use or disclosure of trade secrets by unlawful acquirers, as well as further disclosure to third parties by subsequent recipients.  
 

Because the Amendment does not limit the occupation or status of persons who introduce, arrange, or induce trade secret misappropriation, companies should take appropriate precautions in connection with headhunting, the recruitment of experienced personnel, technology consulting, and business collaboration to avoid potential issues under the new provisions.

1. Key Amendments

2. Key Implications

1. Key Amendments

The Amendment is intended to address the growing risk of trade secret misappropriation through advanced information and communications technologies, while closing a regulatory gap concerning the introduction, arrangement, and inducement of trade secret infringement—conduct for which existing law did not provide adequate penalties. The Amendment passed the National Assembly’s plenary session on August 20, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect six months after promulgation.

A. Express Inclusion of “Hacking” as a Means of Unlawful Trade Secret Acquisition 
 

Article 2, subparagraph 3(a) of the Act defines one form of trade secret infringement as “acquiring a trade secret through theft, deception, threat, or any other improper means.” The Amendment expressly adds “hacking” to the enumerated means of unlawful acquisition, revising the provision to read: “hacking, theft, deception, threat, or any other improper means.” 
Although there were already strong grounds to interpret “any other improper means” under the Act as encompassing hacking, the Amendment expressly identifies the acquisition of trade secrets through cyberattacks as a form of infringement. This is expected to reduce interpretive uncertainty in future cases as to whether hacking constitutes trade secret infringement. 
 

B. New Form of Infringement: Introducing, Arranging, or Inducing Trade Secret Misappropriation 
 

A key feature of the Amendment is its recognition of introducing, arranging, or inducing trade secret infringement as an independent form of infringement under newly added Article 2, subparagraph 3(g). The Amendment also adds subparagraph 4 to Article 18(1), the Act’s criminal penalty provision, expressly making it a criminal offense to introduce, arrange, or induce the acts specified in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of that paragraph, including the unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets. 
 

Previously, brokers who facilitated the recruitment or transfer of key personnel on the premise that trade secrets would be improperly disclosed were not separately regulated as engaging in trade secret infringement. The Amendment now provides a statutory basis for imposing both civil and criminal liability on brokers who plan or facilitate the unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets. 
 

C. Criminal Penalties for Using or Disclosing Trade Secrets Acquired Through Improper Means 
 

The Amendment revises Article 18(1), subparagraph 2 to make criminally punishable not only the acquisition of trade secrets through improper means, such as hacking or theft, but also the subsequent “use or disclosure to a third party of trade secrets so acquired.” 
 

Previously, Article 18(1), subparagraph 2 addressed only the acquisition of trade secrets through improper means. Accordingly, to impose penalties for subsequent use or disclosure, it was necessary to establish separately, under Article 18(1), subparagraph 1, that the offender acted with the intent to obtain an improper benefit or cause harm to the trade secret holder. 
 

The Amendment now provides a statutory basis for penalizing the entire sequence of conduct—from the unlawful acquisition of a trade secret through its subsequent use or disclosure—without requiring additional proof of an intent to obtain an improper benefit or cause harm to the trade secret holder.

D. Criminal Penalties for Disclosure by Subsequent Recipients
 

The Amendment also revises Article 18(1), subparagraph 3. The current provision applies only to the “acquisition or use” of a trade secret with knowledge that an infringing act, such as unlawful acquisition or use, was involved. The Amendment adds “disclosure to a third party” to the conduct subject to criminal penalties.
 

By extending the provision beyond the initial unlawful acquirer to cover further disclosure of trade secrets by subsequent recipients, the Amendment reflects the practical reality that trade secrets may be transferred or disseminated through multiple stages.
 

2. Key Implications

In light of the Amendment, companies should be mindful that conduct in connection with recruiting experienced personnel or receiving information from external sources could inadvertently raise issues under the new provisions on introducing, arranging, or inducing trade secret infringement. Because the Amendment does not limit the occupation or status of persons subject to these provisions, they may be implicated where trade secrets enter or are received by a company in the course of headhunting, experienced-hire recruitment, technology consulting, or business collaboration, and the relevant officers or employees are deemed to have introduced, arranged, or induced the infringement.
 

Accordingly, when recruiting experienced personnel or receiving information from external sources, companies should consider: (i) expressly prohibiting the provision or transfer of third-party trade secrets and other proprietary materials, and specifying contractual remedies for violations, including termination and damages; and (ii) maintaining records demonstrating that the company neither requested nor received specific technical materials belonging to a candidate’s former employer during the interview and evaluation process, and obtaining written acknowledgements from new hires that they will not bring into or use at the company any trade secrets or other materials belonging to their former employers.

Yoon & Yang’s Trade Secret Practice Group is a multidisciplinary team of professionals with expertise across diverse technical fields, including electronics, machinery, and chemistry. The group includes former prosecutors from the Industrial Technology Crime Investigation Division and former officials from the Korea Fair Trade Commission and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. We provide swift and effective legal services in domestic and cross-border disputes, legal advisory matters, and regulatory responses involving trade secrets and industrial technologies. Through our in-house Digital Forensics Center and Discovery Center, we also offer differentiated capabilities in investigating trade secret leaks and supporting clients in cross-border disputes.
 

[Korean Version]