As the U.S.-China trade dispute has worsened recently in 2019, China s cyber espionage activities to steal new technologies from the U.S. are on the rise. According to the New York Times, China s cyber espionage activities have been suspended due to a cyber agreement signed by former President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping in September 2015. However, since the inauguration of the Donald Trump administration, China s cyber espionage activities have resumed and the number of cyber spies has been increasing recently. China s cyber behavior has also changed. It was revealed for the first time in 2013 that officers of Unit 61398 of the Cyber Command under the People s Liberation Army s General Staff of the People s Liberation Army had hacked U.S. companies. Some officers who ran the unit were also indicted by the U.S. government. U.S. officials and experts said Chinese intelligence agencies are operating secret agents in a more private way than they used to be. Experts say China s cyber espionage activities are currently concentrated in U.S. commercial and industrial facilities and IT companies. At this time, the study of freedom of operations in the Constitution and the protection of U.S. trade secrets is meaningful, and Korea should enact a new form of the Industrial Spy Prevention Act or the Industrial Spy Act, such as the Economic Spy Act in the U.S., to expedite the enactment of an independent case to deal with the ever-increasing and increasing industrial espionage crimes and to impose strict and strong criminal penalties. In the case of Korea, unlike in the case of the U.S., there is no regulation on the punishment of foreign criminals in certain cases, which is largely necessary for legislative introduction in the sense that there is a high possibility of a trade secret violation abroad in the era of globalization. Also, it is necessary to legislate a closed-door and secret-keeping command system of psychology in order to prevent the expansion of business secrets during litigation, such as the case of the U.S. and Germany. Under the current law, the issue of collecting personal information is subject to considerable limitations according to the Personal Information Protection Act. In this case, it is difficult for the investigation to find out related suspicions, and there are side effects such as evidence and corruption due to the delay of the investigation due to the difficulty in identifying them, which the government should deal with from the National Security Council to settle the related companies immediately. Second, even though small businesses experience more than twice the number of industrial leakage incidents than large companies, the government should actively promote security system support projects for small businesses in the future given that they do not have a basic security system, such as physical security measures for access control and even high-tech companies are very vulnerable. Third, the standards of punishment for industrial secret leaks are too low to give an excuse for tolerance and connivance, thus discarding the proviso that because the damage is small, it is a living crime because the damage is small, and that an act of industrial security is regarded as a maritime act and is strictly enforced regardless of the number or extent of the damage.