- 期刊
損害債權罪之可責性探討
The Policy Analysis of the Crime of Infringing Credit Rights in Taiwan
摘要
我國刑法第356條毀損債權罪針對將受強制執行之際之債務人故意不履行債務之行為加以處罰，學者通說均認為本罪所保障者為財產法益，更有學者進一步認為此一條文所保障之法益不包含公法債權在內。本文擬從刑事懲處目的（the purpose of criminal punishment）出發，並進一步從美、德、日等外國立法例之觀點，認為本罪可責性應在於執行債務人在自由意志之下，對於明知即將要被執行之財產加以故意毀損或處分，此一行為將使強制執行程序喪失其正確性，並對依據正當法律程序主張權利之債權人利益造成損害，從而此一刑罰係對於上述具有惡性之行為所為之應報懲處；故本罪所保障之法益應為強制執行程序中所欲彰顯之司法正義，並認為公法債權亦應為刑法第356條所欲保障之範圍。本文共分為五部分，第一部分為前言，闡明刑事懲處目的之各種學說。第二部分則介紹我國學說以及實務對刑法第356條解釋以及所衍生之若干疑問。第三部分則從美、德、日等國之立法例來探討刑法第356條所保障之法益應為強制執行程序背後所隱含之司法正義。第四部分則進一步提出本文對刑法第356條毀損債權行為應施以刑事懲處目的之分析。第五部分則為結論。
並列摘要
The model Penal code §356 in Taiwan defines the crime of infringing credit rights as followed:「Whosoever, at the time of an impending enforcement of a judgment and with the intent of obstructing satisfaction of the creditor destroys, infringes, or disposes of parts of his assets shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine no more than 500 dollars.」Judging from the policies of similar penal codes in other countries, this thesis concludes that the main purpose of this penal code is to defend the administrative justice, not to imprison the debtors for not fulfilling their debts.From this standpoint of view, this thesis continues to expound the purpose of criminal punishment of this code, and come to the conclusion that this code can be applied to not only the private debts but also the public debts; and the definition of enforcement in this code concludes both civil enforcement procedure and public enforcement procedure.