宗教騙色之刑事責任

台灣社會的宗教信仰既多元又興盛。人們在日常生活中，時常會進行上香、禱告等各種宗教儀式。而人們信仰宗教的目的，除了尋求心靈寄託之外，也常常是為了滿足特定的世俗需求。有心人士便利用人們對於宗教的功利與迷信心態，以宗教之名去欺騙、恫嚇被害人，並對其進行性交。此類行為，一般稱之為「宗教騙色」。那麼，刑法應如何評價宗教騙色呢？是否應將宗教騙色論以刑法第221條強制性交罪呢？此為本論文主要所欲探討的問題。在研究方法上，本論文主要是透過整理與評析我國學說及實務見解，提出刑法於解釋論上評價宗教騙色的方法。首先，為了解釋強制性交罪之構成要件，本論文從強制性交罪的立法沿革及保護法益的變遷為切入點，描繪出刑法「性自主法益」之輪廓與內涵。而為了達到性自主法益的周全保護，本論文認為，強制性交罪之構成要件毋庸具備強制性質。基於此論點，本論文進一步肯定「不具強制性質的詐術」作為強制性交罪手段之可能性。其次，本論文援用「法益關聯性理論」作為判斷標準，以篩選出得作為強制性交罪手段的詐術。具體而言，必須是對於「是否性交」、「如何性交」、「與何人性交」有所欺瞞之「具法益關聯性的詐術」，始構成強制性交罪「其他違反其意願之方法」。若僅是對於「性交目的」或「性交對價」所有欺瞞的詐術，則屬於「不具法益關聯性的詐術」，而不構成強制性交罪「其他違反其意願之方法」最後，本論文將宗教騙色區分為不涉及惡害的「詐術型宗教騙色」，及涉及惡害的「恐嚇型宗教騙色」。在詐術型宗教騙色的案例中，行為人往往是對於「宗教行為所能達成的效果」有所欺瞞，使被害人限於「性交目的」之錯誤而與行為人進行性交。由於此類詐術屬於「不具法益關聯性之詐術」，而不構成強制性交罪之手段。因此，不能將詐術型宗教騙色之行為人論以強制性交罪。在恐嚇型宗教騙色的案例中，行為人往往是以「涉及超自然力量的惡害」嚇唬被害人，使被害人因心生畏懼而與行為人性交。本論文認為，有鑑於超自然的惡害告知有造成被害人心理強制狀態的效果，而有侵害性自主法益的可能。因此，應認為行為人以超自然惡害恫嚇被害人並對其性交之行為，構成強制性交罪「其他違反其意願之方法」。從而，恐嚇型宗教騙色之行為人，應論以強制性交罪。

關鍵字

宗教騙色；性侵害；強制性交罪；違反意願；宗教信仰自由

並列摘要

Religious beliefs in Taiwan are both diverse and flourishing. People often perform various religious rituals such as incense and prayer in their daily lives. The purpose of religious beliefs is not only to seek spiritual support, but also to satisfy specific secular needs. Some people take advantage of people's utilitarian and superstitious attitude toward religion to deceive and intimidate victims and have sex with them in the name of religion. This kind of behavior is generally known as "religious sexual deception". In that case, how should the criminal law treat religious sexual deception? Should religious sexual deception be treated as the crime of rape under Article 221 of the Criminal Law? This is the main question that this thesis aims to explore. In terms of research methodology, this thesis focuses on compiling and analyzing domestic studies and judicial practices to propose an interpretive approach to the evaluation of religious sexual deception in criminal law. First, to explain the elements of the crime of rape, this thesis takes the legislative history of the crime of rape and the changes of legal interest as the starting point to depict the outline and connotation of the "legal interest of sexual autonomy" in criminal law. In order to achieve comprehensive protection of the legal interest of sexual autonomy, this thesis argues that the elements of the crime of rape need not be mandatory in nature. In the light of this argument, this thesis further affirms the possibility of "non-coercive fraud" as a means of the crime of rape. Second, the thesis uses the "theory of legal interest relevance" as a criterion for screening out fraud as a means of the crime of rape. Specifically, a "fraud with legal interest relevance" that deceives about "whether", "how", and "with whom" constitutes "any other means that against the victim’s will" of the crime of rape. By contrast, fraud that merely deceives about the "purpose of sexual intercourse" or the "consideration for sexual intercourse" is a "fraud without legal interest relevance" and does not constitute "any other means that against the victim’s will" of the crime of rape. Finally, this thesis distinguishes between "fraudulent religious sexual deception," which does not involve threat, and "intimidating religious sexual deception," which involves threat. In cases of fraudulent religious sexual deception, the actor often deceives the victim about the "effects of the religious act," causing the victim to engage in sexual intercourse with the actor for the wrong purpose. This type of fraud is a "fraud without legal interest relevance" and does not constitute a means of the crime of rape. Therefore, the actor of a fraudulent religious sexual deception cannot be charged with the crime of rape. In cases of intimidating religious sexual deception, the actor often threatens the victim with "evil involving supernatural powers" so that the victim will have sex with the actor out of fear. This thesis argues that since the supernatural evil threat has the effect of creating a psychologically coercive state in the victim, there is the possibility of infringing on the legal interest of sexual autonomy. Therefore, the act of threatening the victim with a supernatural evil and having sexual intercourse with him constitutes "any other means that against the victim’s will" of the crime of rape. Therefore, the actor of intimidating religious sexual deception should be charged with the crime of rape.