透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.229.17.20
  • 學位論文

論營業秘密法上之刑事責任──以營業秘密法第十三條之一為中心

A Study on the Criminal Liability under the Trade Secrets Act - Focused on the Article 13-1

指導教授 : 黃榮堅
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


本文認為侵害營業秘密行為於刑事政策上之可罰性基礎,在於保障財產上之經濟利益。營業秘密法上刑事責任之保護法益,為營業秘密原保有者根據系爭營業秘密產生財產之潛力、可能性,屬個人法益。至於公正競爭秩序、國家經濟等,至多僅為保護上述個人法益之附隨效果,並非本罪保護法益本身。據此,本罪之成立以有財產損害之危險性為要件,行為客體及行為態樣均須有造成財產法益侵害或危險之傾向,始該當本罪。 若過度保護營業秘密,可能導致過度限制員工流動性、抑制競爭與創新等不良後果。為避免刑罰本身成為利益侵害之來源,對於本罪應進行實質限縮解釋,以限定處罰範圍。據此,於解釋論之層次,本文主要著眼於本罪行為客體「營業秘密」之定義,並以營業秘密法第13條之1規定為中心,提出其行為態樣之判斷標準。因本罪保護財產法益,本罪行為客體「營業秘密」之要件中,最重要者應為營業秘密法第2條第2款「因其秘密性而具有實際或潛在之經濟價值」,該營業秘密必須具有使原持有人或行為人據該營業秘密而產生財產之潛力、可能性。就此,為區別營業秘密與非屬營業秘密之其他機密資訊,本文提出以下數項具體判斷標準:實際或潛在之經濟價值、客觀之經濟價值、獨立之經濟價值、對取得者與原持有人具經濟價值之原因有一致性、對持有人有正面價值、正當之經濟價值。如此一來,對該營業秘密為第13條之1第1項各款所定之不正取得、使用、洩漏等行為,始可能於客觀上造成該產生財產潛力、可能性之侵害或危險。 於行為態樣方面,如僅為第13條之1第1項第3款所定不刪除、不銷毀營業秘密之行為,或隱匿營業秘密之行為,究竟有無財產損害之抽象危險,有待商榷。為避免過度限制員工流動性,於解釋適用上,仍應於現實上有客觀事證足資證明,對於營業秘密原保有者根據系爭營業秘密產生財產之潛力、可能性有類型上危險性,始構成本罪。

並列摘要


The criminal liability under the Trade Secrets Act aims to protect personal property, to be more specific, the potential or possibility that original trade secret owners gain economic advantages via trade secrets. Incidentally, the order of fair competition and national economy might be protected as well, however, it is not the main purpose of this criminal liability. Hence, to constitute this criminal liability, at least, there should be the danger of damage to the property. The trade secrets and the conduct should tend to damage or endanger the legal interest of property. The excessive protection of trade secrets might excessively discourage labor mobility, competition and innovation. In order not to cause negative effects by the criminal punishment itself, the realm of this crime should be restricted via strict explanation. This thesis focuses on the definition of the object “trade secret”. In addition, this thesis concentrates on the article 13-1 of the Trade Secrets Act and provides the judgement criteria for the conduct of this crime. Concerning that the criminal punishment under the Trade Secrets Act aims to protect property, the most important requirement of the object “trade secrets” must be the subparagraph 2 of the article 2 of the Trade Secrets Act. The trade secrets should possess the potential or the possibility to benefit the original owners or the possessors of the trade secrets. To differentiate trade secrets from other confidential information, this thesis specifies that the trade secrets must have the following economic value: actual or potential economic value, objective economic value, independent value, the same economic value to the original owner and the possessor, positive economic value, and proper economic value. Only if the trade secrets meet the requirement mentioned above would it be possible that the conduct listed in the paragraph 1 of the article 13-1 of the Trade Secrets Act endangers or damages the potential or possibility that the original trade secret owners gain economic advantages via the trade secrets. As for the conduct of this criminal liability, when it comes to the subparagraph 3 of the paragraph1 of the article 13-1 of the Trade Secrets Act, it is questionable whether there would be any possibility of danger to the property simply because the trade secrets were not deleted or destroyed or were hidden. For the sake of labor mobility, there should be evidence which can prove that the potential or possibility that the original trade secret owners gain economic advantages via the trade secrets might be endangered typically.

參考文獻


薛智仁(2014)。〈無故取得電磁紀錄罪之解釋及立法〉,《政大法學評論》,136期,頁45-128。
陳志輝(2012)。〈身分犯之正犯的認定—以德國義務犯理論為中心〉,《政大法學評論》,130期,頁331-418。
李昂杰(2004)。〈著作權法刑罰修正略述〉,《科技法律透析》,16卷5期,頁2-6。
李昂杰(2003)。〈智慧財產的刑罰問題(四):營業秘密的刑罰規範〉,《科技法律透析》,15卷7期,頁4-9。
李昂杰(2003)。〈智慧財產的刑罰問題(一):從專利法除罪化談起〉,《科技法律透析》,15卷4期,頁22-25。

延伸閱讀