內線交易之重大消息何時明確-以我國歷年判決之觀點、法條適用方式進行分析

證交法第157條之1第1項是我國法針對所規定各款之人，於實際知悉發行股票公司有重大影響其股票價格之消息時，在該消息明確後，未公開前或公開後18小時內不得對該公司之上市或在證券商營業處所買賣之股票或其他具有股權性質之有價證券，自行或以他人名義買入或賣出，如果違背則成立內線交易，但對於本條之構成要件歷經幾次修法後仍有爭議，而在許多爭議中本文所欲討論之重點在重大消息成立時點之問題，證券交易法法條中並未明確規定何謂重大消息成立之時間點，亦即重大消息成立之時點在目前現行法規中並未有一個具體之標準，而僅靠法院就個案進行判斷，但值得探討的是就算案例的基礎事實相同，但各級法院卻有不一樣的見解，而導致行為人有罪無罪之間來回審判。而內線交易之案件進入訴訟程序時，法官常以結果論進行審查，亦即法官是以已經發生的事情及行為等程序再回頭審視每項行為，因此有學者提出以法官先入為主之印象，回溯檢視每項行為是否必成為事實，此法稍有事後諸葛之嫌，況且法官在有先入為主的印象後還能否客觀進行審判之審查，故關於重大消息成立時點因為法條並未有明確之規定，導致實務判決之分歧，關於實務間分歧之情形具有深入探討之價值。本文觀察將若干實務判決之見解，並從法學解釋方法的角度，觀察法院於解釋重大消息明確時，運用法學方法之情況。

關鍵字

重大消息何時明確；內線交易；重大消息

並列摘要

Article 157-1, Paragraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act stipulates that a person who has actual knowledge of any information that will have a material impact on the price of the securities of the issuing company, after the information is precise, and prior to the public disclosure of such information or within 18 hours after its public disclosure, shall not purchase or sell, in the person's own name or the name of another, shares of the company that are listed on an exchange or an over-the-counter market, or other marketable securities of an equity nature. However, there is still a controversy over what constitutes this clause after several amendments to the law. Among the many controversies, the focus of this paper is on the issue of the point in time for the establishment of materiality. The Securities and Exchange Act does not clearly stipulate the point in time for the establishment of material information. That is, there is no specific standard for the point in time for the establishment of material information in current regulations, and it relies solely on a judgment determined by a court of law. However, it is worth exploring the fact that even though the underlying facts of a case are the same, the courts at various levels have different interpretations, resulting in a back-and-forth judgement on the guilt or innocence of a defendant. When insider trading cases enter a litigation process, judges often review them with a result-oriented approach, meaning that judges examine each action based on the already occurred events and behaviors after the fact. Therefore, some scholars propose the impression that judges are biased by preconceived notions. Examining each action retrospectively to determine its factual basis raises concerns of hindsight bias. Moreover, after forming an initial impression, whether judges can make objective judgments has come under scrutiny. Therefore, the lack of explicit regulations regarding the timing of the establishment of material information in legal provisions leads to divergent judgments in practice. Exploring the situation of practical divergences is of great value, and it is worthwhile to explore the divergencies in practice. This paper examines several past practical decisions and observes the courts' use of jurisprudence in interpreting material information from the perspective of legal interpretation.