論營業秘密法第13條之2之「意圖在境外使用」要件與情況證據：從最高法院111年度台上字第要件與情況證據：從最高法院111年度台上字第3655號刑事判決談起

“Intent to Use Abroad” Element under Article 13-2 of the Trade Secrets Act and Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court riminal Judgment Tai-Sheng No. 111-3655

我國營業秘密法自2013年起導入刑事責任。同法第13條之1規定侵害營業秘密罪；第13條之2加重處罰「意圖在境外使用」受侵害營業秘密之行為。在比較法上，第13條之2類似美國《經濟間諜法》（Economic Espionage Act，EEA）的經濟間諜罪（18 U.S.C.§1831），其要求被告有意圖或知悉使其犯行能圖利外國政府、外國政府所控制之單位、與外國代理人。近期，最高法院於111年度台上字第3655號刑事判決中，就營業秘密法第13條之2之「意圖在境外使用」要件提出證據法的原則，並據此基準而廢棄前審判決。可預期本案發回智商法院後應是改判被告等成立第13條之2之罪。本文欲借鏡美國EEA判決United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011)，並佐以最高法院111年度台上字第3655號刑事判決之案例事實，而就其一被告之「意圖」認定，提供情況證據判斷之建議。

Criminal liabilities were introduced to Taiwan Trade Secrets Act in 2013. Article 13-1 criminalizes trade secret infringement, while Article 13-2 imposes higher punishment on an accused with an intent to use stolen trade secrets outside this country. Article 13-2 has its counterpart in United States’ Economic Espionage Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1831. § 1831 criminalizes economic espionage and requires an accused to have an intent or knowledge that his act benefits a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. Recently, the Supreme Court in Criminal Judgment Tai-Sheng No. 111-3655 illustrated evidentiary rules for reviewing the “intent for off-border use” element under Article 13-2. It further reversed the IP & Commerce Court’s decision. It is expected that the IP & Commerce Court will find the defendants guilty. This article will introduce United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011), as a reference for discussing Criminal Judgment Tai-Sheng No. 111-3655. The author further provides guidance for using circumstantial evidence to determine the intent element regarding one defendant.