論誘捕偵查－重新釐清其於我刑事程序法上之定義及違法之效果

Entrapment：Redefine Its Meaning and The Effect of Its Violation in Criminal Procedure

莫孟衡(Meng-Heng Mo)

指導教授 ： 王兆鵬

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.03345

摘要

針對現今社會新型態犯罪的不斷出現，政府機關對抗犯罪亦勢必要有不同於傳統的手段，「誘捕偵查」即為其中之一。然而就此種偵查手段，除在警察職權行使法第三條第三項中，其「引誘、教唆」之文字，似與誘捕偵查有關，我國法上對其「成文」的規定幾乎付之闕如。是故，本文在討論上先自「誘捕偵查之意義」此點談起，而本文認為，所謂的誘捕偵查指的是：「國家機關為了偵查犯罪，而以『積極』的設下陷阱，提供誘因引誘、助長被誘捕者犯罪；或『消極』的迎合被誘捕者之犯罪需求，而對被誘捕者加以『逮捕』的一種偵查方式」。
　　在確立了我們要討論的誘捕偵查究竟是怎樣的法律概念之後，要討論的是誘捕偵查此項偵查手段，在我國法上「發動」之「授權基礎」為何。而依我國實務的看法，主要將誘捕偵查區分為「合法」的「釣魚偵查」及「違法」之「陷害教唆」兩者，不過我國實務的看法之問題在於，其僅區分了「手段」的「合法性」，但卻忽略了根本性的問題，亦即若此項偵查手段是自始「欠缺」發動之「授權基礎」，則又該如何？因誘捕偵查實為一「侵害」或「干預」憲法保障人民基本權之「隱私權」及「人身自由」的強制處分，故應「非」任意偵查，基於誘捕偵查同時可能針對「已發生的犯罪」及「未發生的犯罪」發動，前者或可依「警察職權行使法第二十八條一項」作為發動之授權基礎；但後者因誘捕偵查為強制處分，而又無法依「一般偵查及調查權限」，或於我國刑事訴訟法中找到「明文」之發動依據，只好暫時類推刑事訴訟法中關於「搜索」的規定，以解決無法執行此項偵查手段的窘境。而關於誘捕偵查過程中可能造成之「人身自由」的基本權干預，則以刑事訴訟法八十八條第一、二項關於現行犯逮捕之規定，作為發動之法律依據。
　　解決了誘捕偵查手段可能欠缺發動基礎的問題之後，接著就是如何認定執行上手段合法性的問題。關於我國實務對於誘捕偵查「手段」之「合法性」的判斷，因其採納與美國法上「主觀理論（基準）」類似之見解，故亦承襲了其可能之弊病，且為何就只能採納此種判斷方式，我國實務亦自始未加以考慮，因此須藉助比較法上的分析方式，看看究竟以何種標準判斷誘捕偵查手段之合違法性，方為是理。而最後，本文採納了美國法上以「正當法律程序原則」判斷之方式為思考上之出發點，並採納了其他比較法上或我國學說、論者看法之優點，進而將此種判斷方式「引介」入我國法之體系中，使其在我國法中亦得以操作，而非「空唱高調」。
　　而在確立了以「正當法律程序原則」判斷誘捕偵查「手段」之「合法性」後，針對若構成「違法」之誘捕偵查，勢必亦應課與其相應之適切的「法律效果」。我國實務就構成「違法」的「陷害教唆」者，亦有其相應之法律效果的討論，不過我國實務之看法亦有不足之處，仍須藉助比較法來加以補充、修正。分析衡量了各種可能之法律效果的優劣及適用在我國法體系上的可能性之後，本文最後採納了「證據排除說」輔以「毒樹果實原則」的作法；並於例外之情形以「量刑之刑罰裁量說」，對受違法之誘捕偵查者加以救濟。

關鍵字

誘捕偵查 ； 強制處分 ； 正當法律程序 ； 證據排除說 ； 毒樹果實原則 ； 量刑之刑罰裁量說

並列摘要

In order to deal with today's crime transforming into so many different new types, government agencies are also bound to use means of investigation different from traditional ones. "Entrapment" is one of these tactics. However, there are no articles written concerned this kind of investigative techniques, except in the Exercise of Police Powers Law, Article 3 (3), which use words such as “ temptation” or “abetting”. Therefore, this article aims to discuss first from the meaning of entrapment. And we think that the so-called entrapment’s definition should refers to: "In order to investigate crime, government agencies actively set traps, providing incentives to lure, fuelling people to commit crimes; or negatively meet the demands of people who desire to commit crimes, and then arrest those who are entraped."
Since we established the definition of entrapment, this legal concepts, then we are going to discuss if there are any written articles authorizing us to operate this kind of investigation methods. But according to our supreme court’s main opinion, it only differentiates between means of investigation legitimate or not. It doesn’t discuss of the fundamental problem, that is to say this investigation method might possibly lack the authorization basis to execute. Because “entrapment” not only violates but also intervenes "Privacy" and "Personal liberty" under constitutional protection of the fundamental right of people, it should be compulsory measures and requires written articles authorizing government to execute it. As a result, entrapment could be used to deal with crimes which are about to happen or already happened. The former might be relied on Police Exercise Law, article 28 (1) as its authorization to execute; but the latter we couldn’t find written authorization basis for it. So the last thing we could do is analogize the article about search in our Criminal Procedure Law, hence the latter won’t lack authorization basis. Finally, on the other hand, with regard to the violation or intervention of "Personal liberty" during the process of executing the entrapment technique, we could use Article 88 (1) and (2) of our Criminal Procedure Law to arrest those who are entrapped.
When the discussion goes this far here, then we can talk about the problem regarding the legitimacy of the entrapment methods which government uses. Our supreme court’s main opinion, resembling U.S. Supreme Court’s “ Subjective Approach “ inevitably inherits its drawbacks and the worst problem is that ours didn’t consider why we should accept this approach without considering other possibilities. After complex analyzing, this article adopts the “Due Process Approach” to judge the legitimacy of government’s entrapment methods. At last, this article introduces the Due Process Approach into our law system, and we could actually use it, not just a vague idea prattled.
　　In conclusion, to be directed against illegal entrapment methods, we should also give these “wrong” investigating methods appropriate legal effects. To this aspect, our supreme court’s opinion again has its drawbacks, too. To fix them, this article uses the “exclusionary rule of evidence” and the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”,and if it comes to face the extreme cases, we use “criterions for imposing penalty” as an attempt, giving relief to those who suffered treatments from government executing illegal entrapment methods.

並列關鍵字

entrapment ； Due Process ； exclusionary rule of evidence ； fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine ； criterions for imposing penalty

參考文獻

林鈺雄，干預保留與門檻理論－司法警察（官）一般調查權限之理論檢討，政大法學評論第九十六期，2007年四月。

林鈺雄，線民之干預與授權問題－以線民之偵查活動為中心，政大法學評論第八十九期，2006年二月。

吳巡龍，論誘捕偵查－兼評最高法院九十二年度台上字第四五五八號判決，月旦法學雜誌第一四ㄧ期，2007年二月。

吳元曜，論誘捕偵查在刑事訴訟上之效力，律師雜誌第二九九期，2004年八月。

謝志鴻，陷阱偵查於刑事訴訟上之效力，輔仁法學二十期，2000年十二月。