營業秘密侵害案件之偵查內容保密令

Protective Order to Confidential Information in Investigation

營業秘密侵害案件偵查程序中，因所涉資訊具有高度保密需求，且經常為跨領域專業知識，形成偵查機關辨識及判讀困難，於偵辦案件過程中，企業界屢有因對於偵審程序有二次外洩營業秘密風險的疑慮，致未能即時提供充分證據給偵查機關作為判斷依據，造成營業秘密侵害案件刑罰化以來，偵辦及審理實效未盡理想。立法機關為使營業秘密侵害案件之偵查程序中，於維護偵查不公開及發現真實同時，得以兼顧營業秘密證據資料之秘密性，於2018年第9屆第5會期第7次議案之「營業秘密法部份條文修正草案」第14條之1至第14條之4，擬建立檢察官於偵查程序必要時得核發「偵查內容保密令」之制度。本文認為基於檢察官中立義務、營業秘密資訊特性及國內司法實務現況，此制度應有設置必要。「偵查內容保密令」制度係於偵查不公開架構下，進一步將可能涉及營業秘密資訊之偵查資料再設「保護」規範，本質並無強制處分之基本權侵害成分，本文認無採取法官保留之必要。而檢察官作為偵查主體，主導案件之發動、進行及終結，承擔案件偵查結果之判斷責任，且對於偵查程序狀況掌握遠優於未直接操作偵查程序之法院，應由檢察官視偵查程序狀況，於必要時得依職權核發「偵查內容保密令」，始能發揮該制度維護偵查不公開及發現真實之目的，加強保護可能涉及營業秘密資訊之偵查資料，讓告訴人及被告均能減少營業秘密資訊於偵審程序遭二次侵害風險的疑慮，促進偵查程序順行及提升偵辦結果正確性，落實營業秘密法之保障營業秘密，維護產業倫理與競爭秩序，調和社會公共利益的立法目的。 Because the trade secret information involved in the investigation procedure of trade secret cases has highly confidential needs and usually are cross-border professional knowledge, the investigation agency has the difficulty in distinguishing and analyzing whether they are trade secrets. The industry frequently raises their concerns on the further leakage of their trade secrets and hesitates to produce sufficient evidence for the investigation agency to judge. The above explains why the results of investigation and trial are unsatisfactory in the aftermath of the criminalization of trade secrets cases in 2013. In order to maintain the investigation secrecy and finding fact, and concurrently protecting the confidentiality of the trade secrets evidence of the trade secret cases during the investigation proceeding, the Ninth Legislative Yuan in its 2018 Fifth Session Motion No. 7 proposed Articles 14-1 to 14-4 to the Amendment to the Trade Secrets Act, purporting to establish the mechanism for the prosecutors to issue ＂protective order to confidential information in investigation＂ when it becomes necessary during the investigation proceeding. This article recognizes the necessity to establish such mechanism in consideration of the prosecutors' obligations to stay neutral, the characteristic of trade secret and local's judicial practice. The mechanism drives from the structure of investigation secrecy, which further sets forth protection provisions for those investigation information that might involve trade secrets. The ＂protective order to confidential information in investigation＂ in its nature is not a compulsory order that would infringe any basic right. Given this, this article opines that reserved by the judge is not required. Being the major of investigation agency, the prosecutors lead the case, including initiate, proceed and conclude the case. They are responsible for the investigation results. They have more comprehensive knowledge of the overall situations as opposed to the judges, since the latter do not directly exercise the investigation. Only enabling the Prosecutors to issue the protective order at their discretion will achieve the purposes of maintaining the investigation secrecy and finding fact, enhancing the protection on the investigation information that trade secrets would involve therein. Additionally, the mechanism will not only ease the complainant and the defendant’s concerns about the further leakage of their trade secrets, accelerate the investigation procedure and enhance the accuracy of the investigation results, but also achieve the legislative purposes prescribed under the Trade Secret Acts: maintaining industrial ethics and competition order, as well as reconciling social and public interests.