論和略誘未成年人罪：以刑法上之監護概念為中心

On Child Abduction: The Concept of Custody in Criminal Law

李淙源(Tsung-Yuan Lee)

指導教授 ： 周漾沂

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703408

摘要

本文試圖指出各國的學說實務並沒有完全釐清監護權與未成年人保護間的關係，因此導致和略誘罪解釋的矛盾。並且，由於近代對於未成年人的支配不再以家長權力為基礎，對於和略誘罪的分析應該重視子女最佳利益概念中的支配面向。法律上的「子女最佳利益」概念屬於授權法官裁量的一般條款，不適合作為刑法的保護法益。「未成年人身心健全發展」概念則無法特定其保護內涵，亦有以道德為保護內容的疑慮。以特定家庭形象為核心的家庭秩序，則違反人格自由以及平等原則。由於刑法不應該成為利益調控的工具，本文採取以個人自律為基礎的自由法概念，且以自我負責以及風險自我管轄作為刑法的一般原則。不過自我負責的前提是必須具備一定的認識判斷能力，而由於未成年人尚欠缺自我負責所需的能力，因此需要監護體制以扶助自由。在此種體制概念下，體制的義務人並沒有家長權利，而只有履行義務的決定權限。因此，和誘罪與略誘罪保護的是，當未成年人需要家庭保護時，監護體制的運作功能，藉以保護未成年人的法益。

關鍵字

和誘罪 ； 略誘罪 ； 子女最佳利益 ； 身心健全發展 ； 家庭秩序 ； 自律 ； 自我負責 ； 監護

並列摘要

This thesis argues that due to the obscurity of the relation between custody and child protection, there are contradictions concerning the interpretation of child abduction in literature and in practice. Since the authority over child in modern family law is based on “the best interests of the child” rather than “parental power”, the analysis of child abduction should focus on different sides of “the best interests of the child.” Because this concept from family law is a general clause which authorizes the judge to decide in accordance with different circumstances, it cannot be qualified as legal good in criminal law. The concept of “physical and mental development of the child” is vague and vacuous, and it might raise the concerns of protecting morals by law. Basing family order on a specific family image violates a person’s freedom of personality and the principle of equality. Because the criminal law should not act as a tool to regulate interests, the core principles of this thesis are founded on the substantial concept of law based on personal autonomy, and every person, as an autonomous agent, should be self-responsible. However, the premise of being self-responsible is to be competent. Concerning that the minor lack the competence to be self-responsible, the institution of custody should be established to support the minor to exercise their freedom. Therefore, the obligors under custody institution possess not parental rights but discretions in order to perform their obligations. In this vein, the law of forbidding child abduction protects the function of custody institution to preserve the legal good of the minor.

並列關鍵字

child abduction ； best interests of the child ； physical and mental development of the child ； family order ； autonomy ； self-responsible ； custody

參考文獻

40. 王皇玉（2007），〈論醫療行為與業務上之正當行為〉，《臺大法學論叢》，36卷2期；頁41-91。

44. 王皇玉（2012），〈醫師的說明義務與說明義務之免除〉，《萬國法律》，186期，頁26-34。

47. 王容溥（2011），〈法秩序一致性與可罰的違法性〉，《東吳法律學報》，20卷2期，頁71-96。

51. 吳從周（2006），〈民法上之法律漏洞、類推適用與目的性限縮〉，《東吳法律學報》，18卷2期，頁121-149以下。

52. 李立如（2012），〈親屬法變革與法院功能之轉型〉，《臺大法學論叢》，41 卷4期，頁1639-1684。