偵查不公開之法律界限與權衡準則 —以偵查機關行為規範為中心

每當發生重大犯罪，經媒體大幅報導時，偵查機關常遭輿論大加撻伐，認有違反偵查不公開侵害人權之虞。縱使偵查不公開法令一修再修，實務問題仍然層出不窮。相對地，記者以新聞自由及人民有知的權利為由，報導偵辦中個案時，倘若偵查機關以發現真實及保障犯罪嫌疑人名譽與隱私利益，全面禁止公開偵查資訊，亦有違憲法比例原則。究以何標準作為利益權衡準則，需從瞭解偵查不公開理論出發。故本文第二章自介紹偵查目的、偵查不公開保護之「落實無罪推定原則及確保被告受公平審判權」、「保障個人權利」、「維護國家追訴權」等三項利益，及可能干預之利益態樣即「新聞自由」與「知的權利」出發。於理解多項利益調和上之困難，審視學說上多個解決利益衝突之方案後，以我國憲法人權保障精神思考，認為探究偵查不公開法令中偵查機關行為規範是否合憲或合法，當以比例原則作為權衡準則。再者，此種權利間之矛盾關係，不論何種法律體系，必然會遇到該項爭議。故於第三章介紹我國刑事訴訟法參採之美國及德國法制，及同為大陸法系卻於偵查中採取公開透明原則，與我國有著截然不同思維方向之荷蘭法制，作為我國偵查不公開法制比較分析之對象，以利後續評釋我國法令暨行政規範之參考。此外，偵查不公開涉及實務操作問題，唯有實務工作者始能深刻體會公開或不公開偵查資訊之難處，與法令不足處。故本文採用質性研究法，深度訪談實務工作者，試從不同偵查機關及偵查輔助機關處理偵查不公開專責人員角度，與採訪刑事案件記者之採訪經驗等不同面向，切入偵查實務，就我國刑事訴訟法及偵查不公開作業辦法能否通過比例原則檢驗，抑或造成實務運作困難等議題，作一探討。從而，本文以第二章基礎理論及比例原則之權衡準則作一檢視，參酌第三章美國、德國、荷蘭三國偵查不公開法令及實務中與我國國情相符之作法，於第四章至第六章就我國刑事訴訟法及偵查不公開作業辦法有關偵查機關規範部分，先探討法制規範面，即「偵查不公開適用範圍」與「公開或揭露偵查資訊範圍」。再就實務執行面，即「促進偵查不公開之行政規範」作一研究。並分就不同主題，提出各項問題意識，佐以訪談偵查人員與記者之實務視角，探討法令規範漏洞及所致生之實務困擾，其後提出本文修正建議與修正條文對照表，作為未來修法時之參考。最後，探討違反偵查不公開刑事與行政責任之法律界限。可知偵查人員公開或揭露本不應該公開或揭露之事項，通常造成「保障個人權利」及「維護國家追訴權」此二種利益受損。其中個人權利重要者為個人之隱私或名譽法益，依具體情節可能構成刑法第310條誹謗及個人資料保護法第41條等罪責。而違反「維護國家追訴權」利益部分，因影響偵查後續作為，無法或難以實現國家刑罰權，可能構成刑法第132條洩密罪責。另其他違反公開或揭露偵查資訊之應行注意事項、行政強化措施、行政監督與績效考核，及不同機關間之協調機制等行政上要求，與前開偵查不公開所保護之三項法益無直接相關，科以行政責任即可。又秉持刑法最後手段性及刑罰謙抑思想，認為洩漏或交付之客體即偵查秘密，當以危害偵查不公開所保護「維護國家追訴權」之利益作為刑罰界限，方得避免該項規定被毫無限制地濫用。希冀本文提出各項修法建議及行政規範，除能符合憲法保障各種人權之基本要求外，更能具體解決實務問題，維護偵查不公開之多重目的，同時實現偵查機關為法治國守護人之目標。

關鍵字

偵查不公開；偵查資訊；偵查秘密；公開或揭露；洩密罪；新聞自由；知的權利

並列摘要

Whenever a major crime occurs and is heavily reported by the media, the investigative agency is often criticized by public opinion for violating human rights because of conducting an open investigation. Even though the codes on non-disclosure of investigation have been revised over and over again, practical problems still abound. In contrast, when journalists report on cases under investigation on the grounds of freedom of the press and the people's right to know, it would also violate the constitutional principle of proportionality if the investigative agency prohibits the disclosure of investigative information on the grounds of discovering the truth and protecting the suspect's reputation and privacy interests. In order to find out what standard is the criterion for weighing the interests, it is necessary to understand the theory of undisclosed investigation. Therefore, the second chapter of this dissertation starts from introducing the purpose of investigation, the three interests protected by undisclosed investigation, namely "implementing the principle of presumption of innocence and ensuring the defendant's right to a fair trial", "safeguarding the rights of the individual", "protecting the state's right of prosecution", as well as the interests that may be interfered with, i.e., the interests of "freedom of the press" and the "the right to know". After understanding the difficulties in reconciling these interests and examining the various solutions to resolve the conflict of interests, and thinking in the spirit of the protection of human rights in our constitution, we believe that the principle of proportionality should be used as a criterion for weighing the constitutionality or legality of the behavioral norms of the investigative agencies in the codes of undisclosed investigation. Moreover, this kind of contradictory relationship between the rights, regardless of the legal system, will inevitably encounter the controversy. Therefore, Chapter 3 introduces the U.S. and German legal systems adopted in Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Dutch legal system, which is also a Civil Law system but adopts the principle of openness and transparency in investigations, and has a very different direction of thinking from Taiwan's, as the comparative analysis of the legal system of Taiwan's undisclosed investigations, in order to facilitate the subsequent evaluation of Taiwan's laws and administrative norms for reference. In addition, the undisclosed investigation involves practical operational issues, only practitioners can deeply understand the difficulties of disclosure or non-disclosure of investigative information, and the inadequacy of the codes. Therefore, this dissertation adopts the qualitative research method, interviews practitioners in depth, tries to deal with investigative non-disclosure from the perspective of specialized personnel of different investigative agencies and investigative auxiliary agencies, as well as the interview experience of journalists who cover criminal cases, cuts into the investigative practice, and explores whether the Criminal Procedure Code and the Regulations Governing Non-Disclosure of Investigations can pass the principle of proportionality, or whether it causes the difficulties of practical operation. From Chapter 2, this dissertation examines the basic theory and the weighing criteria of the principle of proportionality, and takes into account the laws and practices of the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands on investigative nondisclosure that are consistent with the national conditions of our country in Chapter 3. In Chapters 4 to 6, the investigative agency regulation of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Regulations Governing Non-Disclosure of Investigations in Taiwan is firstly explored in the aspect of the legal system regulation, i.e., "the scope of application of undisclosed investigation" and "the scope of making pulic or disclosure of investigative information". In addition, a study was conducted on the practical implementation aspect, i.e., "administrative regulations to promote the undisclosed investigation ". Moreover, the research is divided into different topics and puts forward various problems and awareness, supported by practical perspectives of interviews with investigators and reporters, to explore the loopholes in the legal regulations and the practical problems caused, and then puts forward the amendment proposals and the comparison table of the amended provisions, which will serve as a reference for the future revision of the codes. Finally, the legal boundaries of criminal and administrative responsibility for violation of undisclosed investigation are explored. It can be seen that the investigator's making public or disclosure of matters that should not have been disclosed or revealed usually causes damage to the two interests of "protection of individual rights" and "safeguarding the state's right of prosecution". Among the personal rights, the important ones are the privacy or reputation of individuals, which, depending on the circumstances, may constitute crimes such as defamation under Article 310 of the Criminal Code and Article 41 of the Personal Data Protection Act. Violation of the interests of "safeguarding the state's right of prosecution" may constitute the crime of leaking secrets under Article 132 of the Criminal Code because it affects the subsequent actions of the investigation and makes it impossible or difficult to realize the state's right to impose penalties. Other violations of the administrative requirements such as the points to note for publicizing or disclosing investigative information, strengthening measures between administrative agencies, administrative supervision and evaluation, or coordination mechanisms between different agencies are not directly related to the three legal interests protected by the undisclosed investigation, and administrative liability can be imposed. Adhering to the idea of the last resort nature of criminal law and moderation of punishment, it is believed that the disclosure or delivery of the object, i.e., the investigative secrecy, should be penalized for jeopardizing the interests of "safeguarding the state's right of prosecution" protected by the undisclosed investigation, so as to avoid unlimited abuse of this provision. It is hoped that the proposed amendments and administrative regulations in this dissertation can not only meet the basic requirements of constitutional protection of human rights, but also solve the practical problems, safeguard the multiple purposes of investigative secrecy, and at the same time realize the goal of the investigative agencies as the guardians of the rule of law.

並列關鍵字

Undisclosed Investigation ； Investigative Information ； Investigative Secrecy ； Publicity or Disclosure ； Offenses of Leaking Secrets ； Freedom of the Press ； The Right to Know