侵犯商业秘密犯罪中的“盗窃”究应作何理解

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses whether copying trade secrets by individuals who are aware of or have access to those secrets constitutes a breach of confidentiality or can also be classified as "theft" under the law [1][4]. Legal Background - Article 219 of the Criminal Law states that serious violations of trade secrets can lead to imprisonment of up to three years or fines, while particularly severe cases can result in imprisonment of three to ten years [2]. - The distinction between "unjust means acquisition" and "breach of duty" in trade secret infringement is emphasized, with the former involving obtaining secrets through improper methods and the latter involving disclosure or use of those secrets [2]. Judicial Interpretation - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have provided interpretations regarding the definition of "theft" in the context of trade secret infringement, indicating that illegal copying can be classified as theft [3][4]. - The new judicial interpretation has not resolved the debate on whether copying trade secrets while having access constitutes theft or merely a breach of duty [4]. Controversial Perspectives - The dominant view has been that individuals with legitimate access to trade secrets cannot be charged with theft, as their access is deemed lawful [4][6]. - Critics argue that this perspective undermines the protection of trade secrets, as it allows employees to copy sensitive information without facing legal consequences [6][7]. Implications of Legal Interpretation - The argument that merely obtaining trade secrets without disclosure or use is less harmful and should not be criminally sanctioned is challenged, as it fails to recognize the inherent risks of losing control over trade secrets [5][8]. - The potential for significant harm to businesses if trade secrets are copied and removed without proper oversight is highlighted, emphasizing the need for legal clarity [6][8]. Judicial Practice - Recent cases have shown that courts are beginning to apply Article 219 to situations where individuals with access to trade secrets illegally copy them, indicating a shift towards stricter enforcement [14][15]. - The Supreme People's Court has clarified that the legitimacy of access does not automatically confer the right to copy trade secrets, and intent must be considered [14]. Conclusion - The ongoing debate regarding the classification of copying trade secrets by authorized individuals as theft or breach of duty remains unresolved, necessitating further judicial clarification to protect trade secrets effectively [16].