The interpretation of the police and the preparatory group for opening is mixed over the jurisdiction of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency’s industrial technology leak case, which will be launched in October. The police believe that if the current provisions are applied as they are, general technology leakage cases will remain under police jurisdiction, while the preparatory team is demanding a revision of the law, saying that the investigation into technology leakage by the Central District Office will be virtually restricted. The government is considering revising the law about two months before the launch of the Central Intelligence Agency, but the jurisdiction has not been confirmed, which is feared to disrupt the selection of manpower and organizational design.
According to the Mail Business report on the 19th, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security is pushing for a revision of the Central Intelligence Agency Act to clarify whether the Central Intelligence Agency has jurisdiction over the leakage of general industrial technology. The government designed a system for the Central Intelligence Agency to be in charge of six major crimes: corruption, economic and defense projects, drugs, state protection, and cyber. However, related agencies pointed out that it is unclear to what extent the Central Intelligence Agency can investigate technology leakage cases and cybercrime with the current provisions alone.
The current Central Intelligence Agency Act includes technology leakage under the Industrial Technology Protection Act, infringement of trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, violation of the Information and Communication Network Act, and breach of duty in the scope of cybercrime. However, these crimes were defined as “cyber crimes that correspond to national core-based attacks such as technology leakage.”
Strictly interpreting this phrase makes it difficult for the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the case simply by allegations of technology leakage or trade secret infringement. This is because it corresponds to an attack on the national core base, and only when it has the nature of cybercrime, it can be regarded as the jurisdiction of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Based on this, the police judge that general technology leaks that do not correspond to national core-based attacks or cybercrime are under the jurisdiction of the police.
On the other hand, the preparatory team believes that if such an interpretation is followed, there are few cases that meet all the requirements stipulated in the law, effectively limiting the investigation of technology leakage by the Central Intelligence Agency. The preparatory team believes that if the requirement of “national core-based attacks” is applied to the entire cybercrime clause, the scope of cyber incidents that the Central Administration can handle could also be too narrow.
In fact, industrial technology leaks are often caused by current and former employees printing design drawings or process data or copying them to mobile storage devices and taking them out rather than external hacking. Such incidents may constitute violations of the Industrial Technology Protection Act or breach of duty, but in most cases, they do not involve national core-based attacks or intrusion into information and communication networks.
A senior prosecutor who was in charge of cybercrime investigations at the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office said, “There are few cases in which technology leaks, national core attacks, and cybercrime requirements are all met.” The preparatory team reportedly conveyed to the Ministry of Public Administration and Security the opinion that the relevant provisions should be revised so that the Central Intelligence Agency can investigate general technology leaks.
The National Intelligence Service, which has handed over cases and information related to technology leakage to the prosecution and police, is also said to have suggested that the scope of cases that can be transferred to the Central Intelligence Agency is unclear.
If the NIS turns over the case without clear jurisdiction, the suspect or the accused can take issue with the investigation authority of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this case, there is a possibility that the legality of the evidence obtained during the investigation or the court dismisses the seizure and search warrant may become an issue in the trial.
The delay in determining the jurisdiction of the technology leak case is also increasing the burden on the selection of personnel and organizational design of the Central Intelligence Agency. The government plans to start the hiring process in early September after confirming the qualification requirements and selection criteria for the Central Intelligence Agency personnel by the end of August at the latest. If the Central Intelligence Agency is in charge of general technology leakage cases, it should secure personnel with expertise in industrial technology protection laws, unfair competition prevention laws, and digital forensics. Conversely, if these cases remain under the jurisdiction of the police, the Central Intelligence Agency must organize the quota and department organization except for the relevant functions.
[Reporter Sung Chaeyoon]
Click Here For The Original Source.
