營業秘密刑事案件關於核發偵查保密令之研究

Abstract

我國營業秘密法自2013年1月30日修訂增加侵害行為之刑事責任後，經偵審實務運行將近7年，發現偵查中一大瓶頸，在於執行搜索被告持有之資料或已搜索取得被告之扣押物時，對於其中是否含有告訴人所有之營業秘密，檢察官或調查人員往往難以自行辨別，如被告又拒絕協商任何檢閱證物的方式，稱扣案證物均為被告自己所有之營業秘密，不同意由告訴人或其委任之人閱覽，否則將使被告權益遭受莫大損害，以致案件陷入膠著，因此修法之議再起。\r\n經過主管機關經濟部智慧財產局舉辦公聽會，與法務部及司法會共同研議與協商，營業秘密法終於2019年12月31日完成再次修法，捨棄引用既有之法官核發秘密保持命令制度，轉而修訂我國獨有之檢察官核發偵查保密令制度，規定檢察官於偵辦營業秘密刑事案件時，認有必要可核發偵查保密令予接觸偵查內容之相關人；受偵查保密令之人，就該偵查內容，不得為實施偵查程序以外目的之使用，或揭露予未受偵查保密令之人，違反者負有刑事責任。\r\n本文嘗試由實務工作角度，經由文獻蒐集偵查保密令立法過程、各方觀點及相關評論，對於偵查保密令施行後2年多的運用情形、有無實際達到修法目的及是否產生新的問題等，透過焦點團體訪談彙整專家、學者之經驗與意見，並提出本文看法，進而歸納結論與提供將來實務及修法之建議。

Since the amendment of the Trade Secret Law in 2013 included the criminal liability of delict, over the past seven years of implementing the law, one obstacle during the investigation that has been found is that the prosecutor or investigation agent has difficulty distinguishing whether the executed data or seizure of defendant truly contains the trade secrets the defendant claims or not. If the defendant rejects to compromise with any methods of examining evidence while claiming the seizure to be his trade secret, the case will be a deadlock.\r\nHence, another amendment to Trade Secret Law was completed in 2019. Prosecutors were granted to issue a Confidentiality Preservation Order to relevant ones if they consider it necessary. The one who receives the Confidentiality Preservation Order should properly use the subject matter. Any purposes other than the investigation procedure should be prohibited. Any unlawful disclosure will be charged with criminal liability.\r\nBased on a practical law executor’s perspective, this study reviews the literature on the legislative process of the Confidentiality Preservation Order, collects the practical information over the two years after the implementation of the Trade Secret Law, and examines the effects of the law amendment. Focus group interviews were conducted to integrate experts’ experiences and opinions to seek useful suggestions for future practices and law amendments.