重新建構詐欺罪——從財產支配關係的觀點出發

我國刑法第339條之詐欺罪，一直以來都是學說上爭論不休的罪名，其構成要件自行為人施以詐術、被害人陷於錯誤、被害人處分財產，以及最後部分學說所認為的不成文構成要件—整體財產損害，可以說在這一連串的犯罪流程中，每一個環節在解釋上多少都還是存有分歧的見解。對此，本文自（足以影響構成要件解釋的）詐欺罪之保護法益出發，亦即，重新檢視刑法所保護的財產法益之內涵，並拋棄以往以「財產」為重的觀點，援引最近學說上所提出的「人的財產概念」，而認為應將刑法所保護財產法益定位為個人對於財產的支配關係，也就是強調財產的價值應是源自於個人使用或處分財產的可能性，而非作為客體的財產本身；因此，整體財產損害最多也就只能當作是用以判斷財產支配關係是否受到侵害的其中一項判斷因素，重點仍是在於，被害人支配財產的意思自由是否有受到干擾，以及此是否為值得由刑法加以保護的財產支配關係。由上述所建構的詐欺罪的保護法益為基礎，即可再處理其所分支出的兩項重要問題，其一，詐欺罪中「施以詐術」以及「陷於錯誤」要件之範圍，即應契合值得由刑法加以保護的財產支配關係之範圍，而此一部分，又必須再結合置身於被害人同意理論中的法益關係錯誤論加以觀察，最終本文認為，應再將被害人對於財產的支配關係，初步區分為消極的處分自由以及積極的處分自由，並分別對於自由的保護課予不同的客觀限制；再者，有關詐欺罪中的「財產處分」要件，則又會牽涉到詐欺罪與其他財產犯罪（尤其是竊盜罪）之間的界線問題，甚至會直接影響到刑法第339條之1至第339條之3的電腦詐欺罪之定位，對此本文則是認為，詐欺罪與其他財產犯罪之間的差異，主要即是在妨害自由的手段類型上有所不同，而電腦詐欺罪的行為態樣即因此較類似於詐欺罪；不過，我國現行刑法針對電腦詐欺之規範，就行為客體而言，僅額外劃分出自動收費設備以及自動付款設備，仍應已不足以應付現今常見的利用第三方付款設備詐欺之情形。

關鍵字

詐欺罪；財產法益；財產支配關係；陷於錯誤；法益關係錯誤；財產處分；電腦詐欺

並列摘要

There is a huge controversy over the elements of the crime of fraud of Taiwan (Article 339 of Taiwan Criminal Code), including the action of fraud, falling into the trap, the disposition of the property, and the damage of the whole property. To reconstruct the crime of fraud, this paper started with reviewing the legal interest of the property. I hold that the legal interest of the property should be regarded as the Property Dominance Relationship, not as the property itself. Therefore, the damage of the whole property could only be considered one of the factors in judging whether the Property Dominance Relationship is aggrieved. After all, the key to making the judgment lies in whether the victim’s freedom to dominate the property has interfered or not, and whether the Property Dominance Relationship deserves to be protected by the Criminal Law or not. As a result, there are two crucial issues derived from the concept of the legal interest of fraud. First, the action of fraud and falling into the trap, two of the elements of fraud, should correspond with the Property Dominance Relationship, which is worth the protection of the Criminal Law. Also considering the Error relating to Legal Interest, the theory of the consent of the victim, I hold that the victim’s freedom to dominate the property should be distinguished into the positive freedom and the passive freedom. The objective restrictions on the positive freedom and the passive freedom are different. Second, the disposition of the property, one of the elements of fraud, is related to the boundary between the crime of fraud and the crime of larceny, and furthermore the position of the computer fraud (from Article 339-1 to Article 339-3 of Taiwan Criminal Code). I hold that the differences between the crime of fraud and other property crimes lie in the varied means of interference of freedom. Accordingly, the computer fraud is similar to the crime of fraud. However, the computer fraud of Taiwan could not contain the action that misusing the device of Third-Party Payment.

並列關鍵字

crime of fraud ； legal interest of property ； property dominance relationship ； caught in error ； the error relating to legal interest ； the disposition of property ； computer fraud