是「藝術」還是「犯罪」？─對於塗鴉行為可罰性之探討

Is It "Art "or "Crime "?-A Discussion on Punishment for the Acts of Graffiti

郭嘉雁(Chia-Yen Kuo)

指導教授 ： 張天一

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201400121

摘要

本文係藉由我國「華山塗鴉事件」所引發的思考，為何塗鴉行為要被刑罰所管制，其可罰的基礎何在？塗鴉行為有其正面或負面的評價，從社會學家以及犯罪學者觀點認為，塗鴉行為的動機在於迅速被發現以及基於匿名而追求被肯定的感覺等，多半被認為是純粹破壞的行為。然而，塗鴉行為同時也被藝術世界擁抱，肯認其為藝術之體現，而非破壞的行為。是故，其爭議的重點在於，塗鴉行為的性質及其社會意涵。
觀諸我國相關法令，是將塗鴉行視為一汙染環境、妨害社會秩序甚至是毀損他人財產的行為。然而，透過對我國司法實務判決的觀察，「美觀」是否得為毀損罪所保護之效用而構成致令不堪用之要件，目前仍無定論，而導致適用上的困難，對於能否符合「毀損」的概念，仍是可議的；另一方面，觀察國外對於塗鴉行為的明確立法管制，大致上係以損壞他人財產的概念使其入罪化，例如德國刑法第303條與304條、英國的反社會行為法等。塗鴉行為之興起源自於國外，故對於塗鴉行為之看法、立法管制措施之理由，得藉由國外之研究經驗做為借鏡，深入研究塗鴉行為的可罰性。因此，本文藉由我國與外國立法例之比較，探討我國對於塗鴉行為於刑事毀損罪適用之情形，並且嘗試提出適當的立法建議。

關鍵字

反社會行為 ； 毀損財物罪 ； 塗鴉行為

並列摘要

This article is thinking why the acts of graffiti have to be regulated by the penalty, and what is the basis of the penalty by “Huashan Graffiti Incident”. The point of this discussion concerning the evaluation which has been argued about whether graffiti is art or crime is the nature and the social significance of Graffiti.
The acts of graffiti have been regarded as the acts of environmental pollution, disorder and even damage to the property of other people in our country by studying our regulations. However, through observation of our judicially practical judgments, we could find that the concept of “damage” or “destruction” is a dispute which has been argued whether aesthetic could be the utility of the protection of the damage crime to conform to the element of being useless. There is still no conclusion causing difficulties on the application. On the other hand, by observing some foreign regulations, we could find the criminalization of the acts of graffiti based on the concept of damage to the property of others, such as the section 303 and 304 of crime law in Germany, and the anti-social behavior law in Britain.
Because the rise of graffiti in our country has derived from abroad, its view point on graffiti and the reasons for legislative control measures are meaningful to us. We may make a further study concerning the punishment of graffiti by referring to the regulations of other countries. Therefore, this article by comparing our legislations with the legislations of other foreign countries will further analyze the circumstances of the acts of graffiti which apply to the damage crime of others’ property. Finally, we will try to make appropriate recommendations for our law.

並列關鍵字

Anti-social Behavior ； Damage Crime of Property ； The Act of Graffiti

參考文獻

李聖傑，普通毀損罪的行為態樣分析─最高法院四十七年台非字第三十四號刑事判例，月旦裁判時報，第19期，2013年，頁110-113。

蔡青昔，台灣街頭塗鴉環境與行為之研究，國立台北科技大學建築與都市設計學研究所碩士論文，2010年。

周鴻祥，塗鴉藝術創作觀念之探討，藝術學報，第78期，2006年，頁57-77。

楊佩華，性別與青少年塗鴉行為之關係，犯罪與刑事司法研究，第8期，2007年，頁53-91。

畢恆達、郭一勤、夏瑞媛，台灣的街頭塗鴉文化，台灣社會研究季刊，第70期，2008年，頁79-120。