본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

퇴사한 직원들의 기술자료 반출행위와 배임죄 성부- 영업상 주요한 자산의 개념을 중심으로 -

Possibility of Charging Former Employees Who Leaking Technology Materials with Misappropriation – In Terms of Important Property in Business-

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

It is matter that former employee leaking sales material and information can be charged with professional misappropriation under criminal law code 365. Misappropriation means Negligence or misconduct by a professional person representing business for clients or employers. The failure to meet a standard of care or standard of conduct that is recognized by a profession reaches the level of misappropriation when a client or employer is injured or damaged because of error. One issue is whether a former employee leaking trade secret and materials which is important property in the company after retiring the company is “the person representing business for clients or employers”. However, it is not manifest standard over the subject of misappropriation in criminal law. If a natural purpose of misappropriation is blaming the person on braking unfaith(The theory of betray), the person representing other’s office works can be recognized by the subject of misappropriation. The other issue is whether former employees who take an action leaking technology materials injure property of former company. The Supreme Court ruled misappropriation, if the leaking materials and information is the most important and indispensable in victim companies, the action has possibility of injuring or damaging property at least. While I have no doubt that invasion of business secret is loss of victim company, I have a doubt that leaking materials can be considered by important property in business. Because it is difficult that materials not to maintain in a secret condition can injure property of company. Therefore the action leaking sales secret can be charged with misappropriation after retiring, however it is not certain that materials not to maintain in secret condition are considered “important of property in business”, and it is not easy that the intention of misappropriation is proved.

Abstract

It is matter that former employee leaking sales material and information can be charged with professional misappropriation under criminal law code 365. Misappropriation means Negligence or misconduct by a professional person representing business for clients or employers. The failure to meet a standard of care or standard of conduct that is recognized by a profession reaches the level of misappropriation when a client or employer is injured or damaged because of error. One issue is whether a former employee leaking trade secret and materials which is important property in the company after retiring the company is “the person representing business for clients or employers”. However, it is not manifest standard over the subject of misappropriation in criminal law. If a natural purpose of misappropriation is blaming the person on braking unfaith(The theory of betray), the person representing other’s office works can be recognized by the subject of misappropriation. The other issue is whether former employees who take an action leaking technology materials injure property of former company. The Supreme Court ruled misappropriation, if the leaking materials and information is the most important and indispensable in victim companies, the action has possibility of injuring or damaging property at least. While I have no doubt that invasion of business secret is loss of victim company, I have a doubt that leaking materials can be considered by important property in business. Because it is difficult that materials not to maintain in a secret condition can injure property of company. Therefore the action leaking sales secret can be charged with misappropriation after retiring, however it is not certain that materials not to maintain in secret condition are considered “important of property in business”, and it is not easy that the intention of misappropriation is proved.

참고문헌 (20)

  1. 김일수, "형법각론(제7판)" (2009), 박영사
  2. 배종대, "형법각론" (2006), 홍문사
  3. 백형구, "형법각론" (1999), 청림각
  4. 오영근, "형법각론" (2009), 박영사
  5. 이재상, "형법각론, 제7판" (2010), 박영사
  6. 정영일, "형법각론" (2006), 박영사
  7. 김종석, "업무상배임죄에 있어서의 영업상 주요한 자산의 의미", 대법원 판례해설, (87) (2011)
  8. 김기섭, "영업비밀유출과 업무상 배임죄 성립의 조건", 형사판례연구, 13 (2000), 서울지방변호사회
  9. 김동진, "퇴직근로자의 정보사용과 업무상배임죄 - 영업비밀분쟁에 관한 새로운 해결방법 -", 법조, 60(6), pp.119~196 (2011), 법조협회
  10. 박강우, "산업스파이범죄의 실태와 법적 규제의 문제점", 형사정책연구, 23(3), pp.129~160 (2012), 한국형사정책연구원
  11. 박성민, "특경법 제3조 제1항의 사기죄에 있어 이득액의 의미와 기준 - 대판 2007. 4. 19, 2005도7288 전원합의체 판결 -", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.189~207 (2009), 법학연구소
  12. 박성수, "배임죄와 타인의 사무를 처리하는 자", 법조, 46(4) (1997)
  13. 신승균, "영업비밀 침해에 대한 형사규정 적용 실태 및 개선방안", 중앙법학, 13(4), pp.669~709 (2011), 중앙법학회
  14. 오영근, "2009년도 형사판례 회고", 형사판례연구, 17 (2009), 박영사
  15. 임정호, "배임죄의 행위주체", 형사법연구, 20(2), pp.49~68 (2008), 한국형사법학회
  16. "BGH NStZ 1996, 540; 1997, 124,125", ~
  17. "BGHSt 8, 149; OLG Düsseldorf, NStZ 1988, 368 mit Anm. v. A. Hoyer", ~
  18. "Cadus, Die fatktische Betrachtungsweise, ein Beitrag zur Auslegung im Strafrecht", ~ (1995)
  19. "Laufhütte, StGB Leipziger Kommentar", ~ (2006)
  20. "Schönke", Schröder-Lenckner, StGB Kommentar, 2010

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (35건)