영업비밀 침해죄에서의 영리가해 목적에 대한 고찰 = A Study on the Purpose of Profit-making or Damage-causing in the crime of infringement of trade secrets

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The crime of infringement of trade secrets under Article 18 (1) 1 of the 「Unfair Competition Prevention Act(UCPA)」 is stipulated as a purpose offender that requires a super-subjective element of “the purpose of obtaining illegal profits or damaging the holder of trade secrets.” It is necessary to prevent the outflow of high-tech technologies overseas. However, phrases related to the purpose are being deleted from the technology protection-related laws to facilitate proof of leakage. In January 2003, the purpose provisions were deleted in the 「Industrial Technology Protection Act(ITPA)」, and in June 2002, an amendment was proposed to delete the purpose of profit-making or damage-causing in the crime of infringement of trade secrets under the UCPA.
If this purpose in Article 18 (1) 1 is deleted, only the phrase “even though you know it will be used in a foreign country” will remain. Therefore, if someone knows this, even if it is not written, all of them are recognized for their intention and are subject to criminal punishment. In addition, since Article 18, Paragraph 2, a regulation related to the punishment of domestic criminals, applies the type of behavior under Paragraph 1, there is a problem that all domestic criminals become intentional criminals. There is a concern that the punishment will be expanded by applying the domestic leakage of trade secrets with low economic value, which is broader than the purpose of preventing foreign leakage of trade secrets with high economic value.
The requirement for the “purpose of profit-making or damage-causing” in Article 18 (1) 1 is to limit the scope of punishment for those who handle trade secrets for the holder of trade secrets. It means suppressing the expansion of unfair criminal punishment. Therefore, rather than expanding the scope of criminal punishment by deleting the purpose of profit-making or damage-causing, it is necessary to introduce and utilize other alleviate-proof systems. Such as a data submission order system, an obligation to present specific types of behavior, and a trade secret use estimation system.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 조용순, "형사처벌 실효성 강화를 위한 기술유출범죄의 양형기준 개선방안" 한국지식재산학회 (74) : 359-410, 2023
• 2 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사 2018
• 3 김성돈, "형법총론" 성균관대학교 출판부 2017
• 4 "헌법재판소 2011. 11. 24. 선고 2010헌가42 전원재판부 판결"
• 5 양형위원회, "제9기 양형위원회 양형기준 설정․수정 대상범죄군 선정"
• 6 관계부처합동, "제1차 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호 기본계획(2022∼2026)" 2021
• 7 윤선희, "영업비밀보호법" 법문사 2019
• 8 "서울중앙지방법원 2014. 12. 19. 선고 2013노4413 판결"
• 9 "서울동부지방법원 2019.7.19. 선고 2019고단729 판결"
• 10 "서울고등법원 1998. 11. 24. 선고 98노2124 판결"
• 11 김선욱, "산업스파이에 의한 국가핵심기술 유출 방지를 위한 법제적 개선방안" 법학연구소 37 (37): 33-53, 2021
• 12 "산업기술의 유출방지 및 보호에 관한 법률 일부개정법률(안) 입법예고(산업통상자원부 공고 제2023-538호)"
• 13 상공위원회, "부정경쟁방지법중 개정법률안 심사보고서" 1991
• 14 산업통상자원중소벤처기업위원회, "부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 일부개정법률안 검토보고(홍정민의원 대표발의, 의안번호 제2118808호)"
• 15 손지선, "목적범에 관한 고찰 -‘불완전한 이행위범과 단축된 결과범’ 분류기준의 재고 -" 한국형사법학회 30 (30): 111-140, 2018
• 16 "대법원 2018. 7. 12. 선고 2015도464 판결"
• 17 "대법원 2017. 11. 14. 선고 2014도8710 판결"
• 18 "대법원 2007. 4. 26. 선고 2006도5080 판결."
• 19 経済産業省 知的財産政策室, "逐条解説 不正競争防止法" 2019
• 20 茶園成樹, "知的財産法入門" 有斐閣 2017
• 21 "最高裁判所第二小法廷平成30年(あ)第582号[不正競争防止法違反被告事件]"
• 22 小野昌延, "新․不正競争防止法概説" 青林書院 2015
• 23 "大阪地判平成27年11月13日判決(平成27年(わ)第280号, 平成27年(わ)第865号)[不正競争防止法違反被告事件]"
• 24 飯島 歩, "営業秘密領得罪における図利加害目的の認定に関する日産自動車営業秘密漏洩事件最高裁決定について"
• 25 産業構造審議会知的財産政策部会技術情報の保護等の在り方に関する小委員会, "営業秘密に係る刑事的措置の見直しの方向性について" 2009
• 26 茶園成樹, "商標․意匠․不正競争判例百選" (248) : 2020
• 27 "名古屋地裁平成26年8月20日判決平成24年(わ)第843号[不正競争防止法違反被告事件]"
• 28 小林憲太郎, "刑法判例と実務(第38回) - 図利(営利)目的および利用処分意思の周辺-" 株式会社判例時報社 (2389) : 2019
• 29 産業構造審議会知的財産政策部会, "不正競争防止法の見直しの方向性について" 2005
• 30 四條北斗, "不正競争防止法(平成27年法律第54号による改正前のもの)21条1項3号にいう「不正の利益を得る目的｣があるとされた事例, 新․判例解説Watch(刑法, No.152)"