Core Viewpoint - The case involving Wang, accused of illegal business operations, achieved a significant breakthrough with the intervention of attorney Chen Sainan, who successfully argued for the non-approval of arrest by the prosecution, thereby protecting the legal rights of the client [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Wang was implicated in a case concerning his wife's supermarket, which was under investigation for allegedly illegally operating tobacco products, with the amount involved exceeding tens of millions [1]. - The sudden criminal prosecution placed Wang and his family in a difficult situation, as they faced both economic and mental pressures, particularly with an elderly mother requiring care and the supermarket nearing closure due to lack of management [1]. Group 2: Legal Strategy - Attorney Chen Sainan quickly engaged in comprehensive investigation and legal analysis, identifying three key breakthroughs: the supermarket held a valid tobacco retail license, Wang was merely a temporary helper without involvement in core business decisions, and the products sold were genuine cigarettes, causing no tax loss or consumer harm [2]. - A dual defense strategy was implemented, aiming for both acquittal and the request for non-arrest, with detailed legal opinions submitted to the investigation and prosecution authorities [2]. Group 3: Outcome and Implications - Through multiple communications with the authorities, attorney Chen effectively articulated the case facts and legal basis, leading to the prosecution's acceptance of the arguments and the decision to not approve the arrest, allowing Wang to return home to care for his mother [3]. - The successful outcome of this case highlights the importance of legal expertise, case analysis capabilities, and effective communication in the judicial process, reflecting the principles of subjective-objective unity and the restraint of criminal law in practice [3].

本文拟探讨行为人知悉或有权限接触商业秘密的情况下，违反保密义务复制商业秘密信息，是仅构成违反义务型侵犯商业秘密行为，还是 也可以构成"盗窃"？ 2025年4月24日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（法释〔2025〕5号）（以下 简称"《解释》"），其中，第16-21条集中对涉侵犯商业秘密刑事案件的相关问题进行解释，界定了"盗窃""电子侵入"等相关概念，对"情节严重""情节 特别严重"的构成以及损失数额的认定等进行了明确。然而，《解释》仍然未能对一个争议问题给出结论，行为人知悉或有权限接触商业秘密的情况 下，违反保密义务复制商业秘密信息，是仅构成违反义务型侵犯商业秘密行为，还是也可以构成"盗窃"？对这个问题的不同回答会导致的影响是，如 果不能构成盗窃，则大量单位内部员工仅获取而未披露、使用商业秘密信息的行为将既不受刑事法律规制，也不受民事法律规制。 《刑法》和司法解释的背景 从侵权手段的角度，该款所列举的侵权行为可以区分为"不正当手段获取型"与"违反义务型"两种类型的侵犯商业秘密犯罪的行为。其中，第一款第一 项表述的即"不正当手段获取型"侵犯商业秘密犯 ...