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
On October 1996 US Congress made the theft of trade secrets a federal crime by enacting the Economic Espionage Act (EEA). It makes the theft of economic information a felony and protects trade secrets at the federal level. The enacting of the EEA resulted from the failure of civil remedies to prevent trade secrets theft, the inability of prosecutors to effectively use other criminal statutes and the increasing economic loses of American companies targeted by spies funded by competitors or foreign nations.
The EEA established two criminal offenses relating to the theft or misappropriation of trade secrets. The first offense, "economic espionage" (18 U.S.C § 1831) is directed to foreign economic espionage and requires that the theft benefits a foreign government. The second offense "theft of trade secrets" (18 U.S.C § 1831) concerns all trade secret theft, regardless of who benefits. The former carries higher penalties than the latter. The EEA contains other important provisions to prevent or deter the misappropriation of trade secrets. The court shall forfeit any property and proceeds derived from a violation of the EEA(18 U.S.C § 1834). In order for maintaining the secrecy of a trade secret during litigation the court shall take such actions as necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the trade secret (18 U.S.C § 1835). The EEA also covers conduct occurring the Unites States when the offender is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the Unites States, or an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States (18 U.S.C § 1837).
Relating to the EEA there are still many questions to be answered. Many commentators suggest that its provisions are very broad and that if not used selectively, it could hamper the mobility of workers ill the labor market, thereby reducing the innovation and creativity.
In Korea Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secrets Protection Act provides instrumentalities for protection of trade secrets (§§ 10). Particularly the section 18 contains penalties on the divergence of trade secrets. However its range of criminal protection, compared with the EEA, is too narrow. It might not be enough to protect or deter the theft of trade secrets effectively. As the importance of proprietary economic information is increasingly recognized, we need to make a more study of the EEA.
The EEA established two criminal offenses relating to the theft or misappropriation of trade secrets. The first offense, "economic espionage" (18 U.S.C § 1831) is directed to foreign economic espionage and requires that the theft benefits a foreign government. The second offense "theft of trade secrets" (18 U.S.C § 1831) concerns all trade secret theft, regardless of who benefits. The former carries higher penalties than the latter. The EEA contains other important provisions to prevent or deter the misappropriation of trade secrets. The court shall forfeit any property and proceeds derived from a violation of the EEA(18 U.S.C § 1834). In order for maintaining the secrecy of a trade secret during litigation the court shall take such actions as necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the trade secret (18 U.S.C § 1835). The EEA also covers conduct occurring the Unites States when the offender is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the Unites States, or an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States (18 U.S.C § 1837).
Relating to the EEA there are still many questions to be answered. Many commentators suggest that its provisions are very broad and that if not used selectively, it could hamper the mobility of workers ill the labor market, thereby reducing the innovation and creativity.
In Korea Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secrets Protection Act provides instrumentalities for protection of trade secrets (§§ 10). Particularly the section 18 contains penalties on the divergence of trade secrets. However its range of criminal protection, compared with the EEA, is too narrow. It might not be enough to protect or deter the theft of trade secrets effectively. As the importance of proprietary economic information is increasingly recognized, we need to make a more study of the EEA.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 경제스파이법의 입법연혁
Ⅲ. 경제스파이법의 내용
Ⅳ. 경제스파이법이 적용된 사건과 분석
Ⅴ. 경제스파이법의 문제점
Ⅵ. 경제스파이법이 주는 시사점
Ⅶ. 결론
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Trade Secret Protection in USMCA and Its Implications for Korea
[KIEP] KIEP Opinions
2019 .07
-
기업의 영업비밀에 대한 형사법적 보호
형사법연구
2006 .01
-
영업비밀의 성립 및 침해요건에 관한 연구 – 우리나라 일본의 판례를 중심으로 –
경영법률
2012 .01
-
부정경쟁방지법에서의 영업비밀의 형사법적 보호
외법논집
2011 .01
-
영업비밀의 대상과 비밀관리성 요건에 관한 연구
중앙법학
2020 .03
-
營業秘密侵害에 대한 刑事處罰의 可能性과 改善方案
법학논총
2002 .02
-
산업스파이범죄의 실태와 형사법적 대응
비교형사법연구
2009 .01
-
산업스파이에 관한 미국의 최근판례와 입법의 동향
강원법학
2015 .02
-
형사사법의 입장에서 본 영업비밀보호의 최근동향 및 대응방안- 우리나라와 일본의 판례 및 침해사례를 중심으로 -
비교형사법연구
2018 .01
-
중국관련 영업비밀침해 범죄의 실태와 그 대응방안에 관한 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2015 .12
-
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
-
영업비밀의 비밀관리성 요건
원광법학
2011 .01
-
영업비밀의 부정이용행위 규율에 관한 정책과제와 전망 - 미국과 일본의 사례를 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .06
-
영업비밀 침해소송에서 그 특정을 둘러싼 쟁점과 과제
법학연구
2011 .07
-
직무발명 관련 과학기술연구자의 권리 보호 : 산업기술의 유출방지 및 보호에 관한 법률과 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀 보호에 관한 법률을 중심으로
노동법연구
2007 .09
-
중국의 영업비밀 보호제도에 관한 연구 - 최고인민법원의 부정당경쟁해석을 중심으로 -
法學論文集
2013 .01
-
영업비밀 관련 분쟁에서의 공공 감정체계 도입에 관한 연구
경영법률
2014 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018450582