賭博罪正當性問題之研究－兼論其保護法益

Legitimacy of Gambling and Its Legally Protected Interest (Article 266 of the Criminal Code)

葛名翔(Ming-Hsiang Ko)

指導教授 ： 黃榮堅

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.00888

摘要

長久以來，賭博行為是否應除罪化就是具有爭議性的問題。賭博存在於社會中已經有很長的一段時間，且深受大眾的喜愛。不過由於賭博的過程帶有利益流動，容易產生人的僥倖心態，使其不務正業只想透過賭博來賺錢。這樣的後果可能會造成社會風氣受到影響，進而引發社會問題或其他犯罪。因此，我國刑法第二百六十六設有賭博罪之規定，禁止於公開場所進行的賭博行為。不過由於我們生活中也有許多射倖性行為（例如打賭、投資等商業活動），如何將之與賭博行為做區隔也成為一件重要的事情。
　　不過隨著時代變遷，世界各國開始出現了將賭博除罪化的聲音，不用刑罰手段來加以處罰，而是改用事前的政府監督或事後的行政罰鍰來對賭博活動或賭場設置加以管制。因為從心理學的角度來看，賭為人的天性，與其用強制手段來禁止賭博行為，不如改用疏導的方式來部分的開放它，同時政府還可以獲得額外的稅收。從犯罪學的角度來看，賭博罪被分類為無被害人犯罪或非道德犯罪，其指在賭博進行的過程中並不會侵害到任何人的具體利益，至多只能主張其會造成社會道德的侵害，可是這種不具有強烈社會損害性的行為真的有必要用刑罰手段來處罰嗎，其存在的正當性即有疑義。
　　再從刑法的角度來看，作為一部法益保護法，如果某個行為並沒有造成法益侵害，即不能用刑法來加以管制。賭博罪的保護法益學說上主要提到了四個：社會善良風俗、勤奮國民生活方式、避免後續犯罪產生、個人財產利益。因此，本文將會深入檢討賭博行為與法益之間的關係，並且基於刑法的謙抑性及最後手段性，看手段與目的間是否逾越了比例原則。最後在將以上的討論加以分析，來判斷賭博罪的存在是否具有正當性，很明顯地是，賭博罪的正當性是有問題的。
　　我國對於賭博的政策也正朝部分開放的方向前進，不僅有公益彩券的發行，行政院亦提出「觀光賭場管理條例」草案，顯示出或許對賭博行為除罪化，改用行政管制的手段會是較好的一種方式。

關鍵字

賭博行為 ； 賭博心理學 ； 病態賭博 ； 無被害者犯罪 ； 保護法益 ； 社會善良風俗 ； 除罪化

並列摘要

Whether gambling should be punished has become a controversial issue during the past few years. Gambling is a popular activity enjoyed by many. The process of gambling generates interests, and thus encourages indulgence and laziness, which may negatively influence social conventions, causing more social problems and crimes. Article 266 of the Criminal Code therefore prohibits people from gambling in a public place or a place open to the public. However, as there are other types of speculation (such as betting, investments, and other financial activities), how to distinguish them from gambling becomes an important issue
　　In recent years, a lot of countries begin to decriminalize gambling activities and utilize control of the governments in advance, administrative fines afterwards, or control of establishing casinos. From a psychological point of view, gambling is a natural human instinct. Compared to legal prohibition, partly allowing such activities for the public is not only more preferable, but also increases tax revenue for the government. From a criminological point of view, gambling is classified as crime without victim or immoral crime. It means that, instead of infringing anyone’s interest, gambling can only infringes the social moral. Is gambling so harmful that we should use the method of punishment? The legitimacy of such punishment is thus controversial.
　　From the view of the Criminal Code, a law which protects interests, if a conduct is not harmful to any interest, it cannot be controlled by the Criminal Code. The protected interests from gambling crime are social conventions, lifestyle of hardworking, avoidance of subsequent crime, and personal property interests. Therefore, this thesis will discuss the relationship between gambling and the protected interests, as well as verify whether the means and purpose are beyond the principle of proportionality. In the end, we will realize that the legitimacy of gambling does not exist. It should be decriminalized.
　　The policy of gambling gradually loosens in our country. There are lottery and even the Tourist Casino Management Act proposed by the Executive Yuan. It shows that decriminalize gambling and use the method of administrative control is a proper way.

並列關鍵字

gambling ； psychology of gambling ； pathological gambling ； crime without victim ； protected interest ； social convention ； decriminalization

參考文獻

錢money理財研究室（1994）。《期貨投資－高風險、高報酬的投資遊戲》。台北：金錢文化企業股份有限公司。

Paul Bellringer著，廣梅芳譯（2002）。《慾望之心－了解賭徒心理》。台北：張老師文化事業股份有限公司。

王皇玉（2004）。〈論施用毒品行為之犯罪化〉，《台大法學論叢》，33卷第6期，頁39-76。

古承宗（2009）。〈危險的電子遊戲場－評析大法官釋字第六四六號解釋〉，《東吳法律學報》，21卷1期，頁129-162。

周漾沂（2012）。〈從實質法概念重新定義法益：以法主體性論述為基礎〉，《台大法學論叢》，41卷3期，頁981-1053。