內線交易罪主觀要件初探－兼評臺灣高等法院104年度金上訴字第46號刑事判決

就有關我國證券交易法內線交易罪主觀要件的認定，多年來存有「獲悉說」與「利用說」之爭議，我國法院多數採取「獲悉說」，意即行為人「獲悉」未公開之重大消息進而為股票之買賣即成立內線交易，無須進一步證明被告有「利用」重大消息。然而，行為人「獲悉」重大消息，並不必然足以推論行為人有觸犯內線交易罪之「故意」，上開法院見解應有誤會。本文認為基於禁止內線交易保護之立法目的及刑法無罪推定原則之要求，應採取「修正之獲悉說」，即當檢察官提出之證據足以證明被告獲悉消息時，依經驗法則及論理法則，即足以認定被告有利用消息而有犯罪故意。另一方面，被告亦可提出反證，抗辯其交易與內線消息無關而為犯罪故意，如此始符合公平正義。

關鍵字

內線交易；知悉內線交易；利用內線交易；修正式持有說；無罪推定

並列摘要

This article is to explore the ＂Knowing Possession＂ versus ＂Use＂ debate on insider trading prohibition under Taiwan's Securities Exchange Act (the ＂Act＂), focusing on: is an insider's knowing possession of the material nonpublic information at the time of trade sufficient for insider trading liability? Or a trader's actual use of the information in making his trading decision should be proved? In Taiwan, most courts support ＂Knowing Possession standard＂ which means that the prosecution is not required to prove the material nonpublic information was used by a person when he made the purchase or sell. However, the author advocates ＂Modified Possession Standard＂ based on the purpose of the Act prohibiting insider trading and the principle of presumption of innocence. First, a person who was aware of the information at the time of trade does not mean he intentionally violated the law. Furthermore, under the doctrine of burden of proof, once the prosecution establishes the fact that a defendant was aware of information should be sufficient to prove that the defendant used the information because of the rules of experience and logic. On the other hand, the defendant can contend that he did not intentionally violate the law by offering evidence that the trade was not on the basis of the information.