지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In modern society the importance of science and technology is enormously growing. Korean companies have developed high technology very rapidly in fields of memory semiconductors, computer, automobile, home appliances. This means that Korean companies are now not out of range of the global economic espionage. For example, in 1998 a ghost company founded by some former researchers took illegaly industrial secrets of Samsung and LG, and sold them to a Taiwanese company. In the aftermath of this case, the legislature has revised the 「Unfair Competition Prevention and Business Secret Protection Act」(Unfair Competition Act) and broadened the range of criminal responsibility in case of divulgence of trade secrets on techniques. The Act is effective since July 1, 1999.
Nevertheless it is not to oversee that the revised Act does not provide enough criminal protection against economic espionage. In this paper I look into protection systems of other major countries, such as USA, Germany, Japan, Swiss, Austria, Italy. Through this comparative study we can found out what kind of problems the Korean protection system has and how to remedy them.
The Unfair Competition Act penalizes some acts of misappropriation of trade secrets on techniques. Any officer or employee of an enterprise who, without any justifiable reason, uses in a foreign country any business secrets on techniques useful to the enterprise or, with knowledge that the secrets will be used in a foreign country, divulges them to a third party shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding one hundred million won(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅰ 1). As same shall be punished any ex-officer or employee of an enterprise who, with intent to gain any unfair profit or to inflict any loss on the enterprise, uses in a foreign country any business secrets on techniques useful to such enterprise or, with knowledge that the secrets will be used in a foreign country, divulges them to a third party, in violation of the duties of observance of secrecy under a contract or any similar relation(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅰ 2). These provisions are intending to prevent disclosure of trade secrets in favor of foreign countries.
Any officer or employee of an enterprise who divulges any business secrets on techniques useful to the enterprise to a third party, without any justifiable reasons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifty million won(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅱ 1). Any ex-officer or employee of an enterprise who divulges any business secrets on techniques useful to such enterprise to a third party, with intent to gain any unfair profit or to inflict any loss on the enterprise, in violation of the duties of observance of secrecy under a contract or any similar relation shall be punished also by imprisonment not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifty million won(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅱ 2).
The punishment of imprisonment and fine under Art. 18 Ⅰ and Ⅱ shall be concurrently imposed(§18 Ⅳ). A public action against the offense referred to in Art. 18 paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be instituted only on the aggrieved person's complaint: Provided, That the same shall not apply where it is deemed necessary for national security or material public interests(§18 Ⅴ). Other than the Unfair Competition Act some provisions of criminal code, such as breach of trust (Art. 355 Ⅱ), theft, etc can apply to the theft of trade secrets, but with limitations.
In application of the Unfair Competition Act some problems can be pointed out: 1) the Act does not criminalize outside-actor, in that only officers or employees, whether present or former, fall under the criminal provisions. The application range of the criminal provisions should be widened. 2) The Act focus mainly on "divulge" or disclose of trade secrets on techniques, and very limitedly on "use" of trade secrets. We must say that a professional industrial spy could avoid the punishment by the Act, let aside other acts. So the Act should be revised so as to encompass the actions like "obtain, acquire, take away, steal, copy, photocopy" of trade secrets. 3) Attempt, or conspiracy should be put under punishment in order to provide an enough protection of the trade secrets. 4) Some procedural measures are necessary to prevent disclosure of trade secrets in criminal trials.
Nevertheless it is not to oversee that the revised Act does not provide enough criminal protection against economic espionage. In this paper I look into protection systems of other major countries, such as USA, Germany, Japan, Swiss, Austria, Italy. Through this comparative study we can found out what kind of problems the Korean protection system has and how to remedy them.
The Unfair Competition Act penalizes some acts of misappropriation of trade secrets on techniques. Any officer or employee of an enterprise who, without any justifiable reason, uses in a foreign country any business secrets on techniques useful to the enterprise or, with knowledge that the secrets will be used in a foreign country, divulges them to a third party shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding one hundred million won(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅰ 1). As same shall be punished any ex-officer or employee of an enterprise who, with intent to gain any unfair profit or to inflict any loss on the enterprise, uses in a foreign country any business secrets on techniques useful to such enterprise or, with knowledge that the secrets will be used in a foreign country, divulges them to a third party, in violation of the duties of observance of secrecy under a contract or any similar relation(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅰ 2). These provisions are intending to prevent disclosure of trade secrets in favor of foreign countries.
Any officer or employee of an enterprise who divulges any business secrets on techniques useful to the enterprise to a third party, without any justifiable reasons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifty million won(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅱ 1). Any ex-officer or employee of an enterprise who divulges any business secrets on techniques useful to such enterprise to a third party, with intent to gain any unfair profit or to inflict any loss on the enterprise, in violation of the duties of observance of secrecy under a contract or any similar relation shall be punished also by imprisonment not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifty million won(Unfair Competition Act §18 Ⅱ 2).
The punishment of imprisonment and fine under Art. 18 Ⅰ and Ⅱ shall be concurrently imposed(§18 Ⅳ). A public action against the offense referred to in Art. 18 paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be instituted only on the aggrieved person's complaint: Provided, That the same shall not apply where it is deemed necessary for national security or material public interests(§18 Ⅴ). Other than the Unfair Competition Act some provisions of criminal code, such as breach of trust (Art. 355 Ⅱ), theft, etc can apply to the theft of trade secrets, but with limitations.
In application of the Unfair Competition Act some problems can be pointed out: 1) the Act does not criminalize outside-actor, in that only officers or employees, whether present or former, fall under the criminal provisions. The application range of the criminal provisions should be widened. 2) The Act focus mainly on "divulge" or disclose of trade secrets on techniques, and very limitedly on "use" of trade secrets. We must say that a professional industrial spy could avoid the punishment by the Act, let aside other acts. So the Act should be revised so as to encompass the actions like "obtain, acquire, take away, steal, copy, photocopy" of trade secrets. 3) Attempt, or conspiracy should be put under punishment in order to provide an enough protection of the trade secrets. 4) Some procedural measures are necessary to prevent disclosure of trade secrets in criminal trials.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 글
Ⅱ. 영업비밀의 의의
Ⅲ. 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률상 영업비밀침해죄
Ⅳ. 형법, 기타 법률에 의한 내부인의 처벌
Ⅴ. 특수한 지위의 외부인의 영업비밀침해에 대한 처벌
Ⅵ. 단순외부인의 영업비밀침해에 대한 처벌
Ⅶ. 공범의 처벌
Ⅷ. 산업스파이 처벌의 문제점과 개선방안
Ⅸ. 맺음말
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
부정경쟁방지법에서의 영업비밀의 형사법적 보호
외법논집
2011 .01
-
Trade Secret Protection in USMCA and Its Implications for Korea
[KIEP] KIEP Opinions
2019 .07
-
형사사법의 입장에서 본 영업비밀보호의 최근동향 및 대응방안- 우리나라와 일본의 판례 및 침해사례를 중심으로 -
비교형사법연구
2018 .01
-
미국의 경제스파이법
법학연구
2001 .12
-
중국의 영업비밀 보호제도에 관한 연구 - 최고인민법원의 부정당경쟁해석을 중심으로 -
法學論文集
2013 .01
-
營業秘密의 國際産業스파이行爲에 대한 刑事的 救濟 : 美國 經濟스파이處罰法(EEA)과 不正競爭防止및 營業秘密保護에관한 法律을 中心으로
통상법률
2006 .02
-
근로자의 비밀유지의무와 영업비밀
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
영업비밀의 대상과 비밀관리성 요건에 관한 연구
중앙법학
2020 .03
-
영업비밀의 성립 및 침해요건에 관한 연구 – 우리나라 일본의 판례를 중심으로 –
경영법률
2012 .01
-
영업비밀의 부정공개 및 이후의 침해행위에 대한 고찰
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
기업의 영업비밀에 대한 형사법적 보호
형사법연구
2006 .01
-
영업비밀의 침해행위와 구제방법에 관한 고찰 : 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률을 중심으로
공공사회연구
2012 .02
-
개정 부정경쟁방지법 (차)목 및 (카)목의 해석·적용에 관한 고찰
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
일본의 영업비밀보호제도의 개정에 대한 비교법적 연구
동북아법연구
2016 .01
-
중국관련 영업비밀침해 범죄의 실태와 그 대응방안에 관한 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2015 .12
-
영업비밀의 주요 쟁점에 대한 판례 동향
법이론실무연구
2015 .04
-
영업비밀 성립요건 중 경제적 유용성
강원법학
2017 .10
-
대기업과 중소기업의 영업비밀 탈취 방지 방안
경영법률
2011 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-016009396