| 1979年中国刑法初次划定了有关常识产权犯法的冒充注册商标罪。1997年在刑法第3章第7节划定了侵占常识产权犯法，在第213条至第220条分离划定了侵占商标权，专利权，韩语论文，作品权，贸易机密犯法。但以后，刑法没有对常识产权犯法停止进一步的修正。韩国常识产权轨制实行以1946年专利法制订为终点。1949年制订了商标法，1957年制订了作品权法。韩国的侵占常识产权犯法不是划定在刑法而是在各个常识产权司法中。以后，各个常识产权司法经由了几十次的修正。特殊是，侵占常识产权犯法划定，2000年今后赓续停止修正，使其反应常识产权有关情形的变更。本文经由过程对中韩在常识产权轨制的比拟，阐述了两国轨制上的异同，即中国普遍采取罚款、充公等具有激烈的行政权利颜色的行政掩护办法，韩语论文网站，而韩国常识产权掩护重要是司法掩护措施的平易近事掩护和刑事掩护；中国采用了把侵占常识产权犯法的内容只划定在刑法中的集中型立法规，而韩国采用了把侵占常识产权犯法划定在各个常识产权司法中的疏散型立法规；中国以自在刑为主，以罚金为弥补的措施，而韩国重要以罚金为主，对于充公，采用充公侵权者的对象或侵权者的所得物的措施；韩国对侵占专利权，侵占作品权，侵占贸易机密都划定是亲陪罪，而中国不采用亲陪罪；韩国在划定犯法成立上没无情节轻重，然则中国在每条都有；法院和搜寻机关之间管辖规模上有异同等。然后对中韩两国的常识产权刑法掩护条目停止比拟，指出了两国间的异同。即在韩国，与别人注册的商标相似的商标运用在其统一或相似商品上的行动组成犯法，而在中国不组成犯法；中国刑法只划定‘冒充专利罪’，没有划定侵占专利权犯法，而韩国的专利律例定这两种行动为犯法；中国侵占作品权罪须要营利目标，而韩国只需是侵占行动就组成犯法。对于侵占贸易机密犯法，中国刑法没有划定以特定目标为组成要件；而韩公法学划定，这些犯法的成立前提包含‘取得欠妥所得或许伤害公司’的目标。经由过程对中韩两国的常识产权轨制及刑法掩护划定划定等比拟剖析，指出了对两国掩护常识产权的诸多建议，中国刑法须要修正简直10年没有修订的有关常识产权的划定。进而反应97年今后成长的常识产权掩护的现实情形。韩国也跟中国一样应当持续研究资历刑轨制等先辈轨制，所以中国和韩都城应当持续反应司法情况的变更，成长本国的司法。愿望本文可认为有关部分的研究供给参考，同时也望对中韩交换的扩展和经济的成长有所裨益。 Abstract: China's criminal law in 1979 first designated the crime of illegal posing as a registered trademark of the crime of intellectual property. 1997 in the third chapter of the seventh chapter of the criminal law in the section of the law of the occupation of intellectual property rights, in 213rd to 220th separate delineation of the occupation of trademark rights, patent rights, copyright, trade secret law. But later, the criminal law does not stop the further amendments to the law of intellectual property rights. South Korea common sense system to implement the system in 1946 as the end of the patent law. The trademark law was established in 1957, and the copyright law was established in 1949. South Korea's occupation of intellectual property rights is not defined in the criminal law but in the various common sense of justice. Later, all intellectual property rights of the judiciary through dozens of amendments. Special is, occupation of intellectual property crime delineated, 2000 years later gengxu modify, change of the reaction of intellectual property related to the case. In this paper, through the process of China and South Korea in the match of intellectual property system, expounds the differences between the two countries system, namely China generally take fine, confiscation is fierce administrative right color administrative measures to protect intellectual property rights, while South Korea is covering the important judicial method in plain cover cover and cover the Chinese criminal; on intellectual property law only in the criminal law of the designated centralized legislation, while South Korea uses the encroachment of intellectual property law in each designated evacuation of intellectual property rights in the judicial legislation; Chinese to freedom, make up the way to fine, while South Korea important fined, confiscated about, methods the object of infringement confiscated or infringement of the patent right; South Korea for embezzlement, embezzlement embezzlement of copyright, trade secrets are designated as pro and sorry. China does not use the pro to apologize; South Korea in delineating the crime establishment without the seriousness of the case, however, China in each; between court and search authority jurisdiction size differences. Then to China and South Korea's common sense property rights protection of criminal law comparison, pointed out the differences between the two countries. That in South Korea, similarity and others to register the trademark trademark application on the uniform or similar goods act constitutes a crime, in China does not constitute a crime; criminal law of China only designated 'counterfeit patent crime', did not delineate the occupation of patent crime, and Korean patent statutes set the two action is illegal; crime of embezzlement copyright need profit targets and Korea only is the occupation of action is so serious as to constitute a crime. About embezzlement of trade secrets law, Chinese criminal law does not delineate the specific target as the elements, while the South Korean public law. These illegal premise contains' get undeserved income may hurt companies' goal. Through the process of Korean and Chinese intellectual property rail system and criminal law cover delineation delineation of the comparative analysis, pointed out on their cover of intellectual property many suggestions, Chinese criminal law need almost 10 years no amendment of the relevant intellectual property rights delineation of correction. Further reaction to the reality of the 97 years of future growth of the common sense of protection of property rights. South Korea, as well as China should continue to study the qualifications of the system of criminal and other advanced systems, so the capital of China and the Republic of Korea should continue to react to changes in the judicial situation, the growth of the judiciary. Wish this paper can be considered to provide reference for some of the research, but also hope that the expansion of China and South Korea Exchange and economic growth is useful. 目录: |
