論兒童虐待之刑事規制──以刑法第286條妨害幼童發育罪為中心

A Study in the Assessment of the Criminal Law on Child Abuse:Article 286 of the Criminal Code

劉穎嫻(Ying-Hsien Liu)

指導教授 ： 李茂生

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/NTU201703821

摘要

本文旨在以立法論之觀點來探討兒童虐待之刑事規制。首先考察各國比較法例，主要參酌國際社會之討論，採以較具討論代表性的美國法、英國法、德國法與日本法作為考察對象。以此為參考視點，本文接著介紹我國現行法針對兒童虐待之刑事規制，以比較法之觀點提出問題意識，進而以刑法第286條妨害幼童發育罪為討論中心，開展本文所欲討論的主題。
　　我國現行法針對兒童虐待行為所為的刑事規制，除了兒童及少年福利與權益保障法、兒童及少年性交易防制條例等特別法以外，係以刑法第286條妨害幼童發育罪為主要規範。惟於2012年修法之後，本罪擴大處罰範圍，以危險犯的態樣就兒童之生命、身體法益進行規制，儼然成為在個人法益罪章裡的特例。在實務依然對於本罪無所適用之情況下，法務部於2017年公布刑法部分條文修正草案，再次針對刑法第286條妨害幼童發育罪進行修正。惟若簡單檢討本罪的罪質、行為類型以及競合等相關問題，將會發現本罪基於兒童虐待的先天性規範困境，註定無法真正發揮作用，無論如何修法都無法發揮規制效果。在確認本罪無法發揮任何實質規範功能以後，本文爬梳西方對於童年與兒童虐待的相關論述，對於台灣歷史脈絡下的童年加以考察，認為立法者堅持對不具規範作用的本罪持續修法，隱藏的不過是現代童年對於兒童的脆弱想像，以及保護主義在宣示意義上的展現而已。以此來看待本罪，便能發現本罪不過僅是象徵性立法，在規訓的社會裡更會產生選擇性執法的可能性，具有被恣意濫用的危險。
　　歸納前述對於比較法例及歷史脈絡的考察及相關分析，本文認為基於兒童虐待事件的特殊性，於此並不適合以刑罰的手段來就兒童虐待加以規制。是以在刑法第286條妨害幼童發育罪無法具有任何規範意義、甚至擁有象徵性立法的危險性之下，根本之道或許在於廢除本罪，承認刑法就此無能為力，再多的宣示與遮掩都沒有任何實質意義。

關鍵字

兒童虐待 ； 刑法第286條 ； 妨害幼童發育罪 ； 童年 ； 兒童形象

並列摘要

This article aims to explore the child abuse law: Article 286 of the Criminal Code from the legislative perspective. In the article, I compare selected countries’ child abuse law, including the United States, British, German, and Japan. I then explain Taiwan’s child abuse law and examine its legislation models.
In addition to the special laws such as the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act and Child and Youth Sexual Transaction Prevention Act, the Article 286 of Criminal Code: Offenses of Child Development is the primary law on child abuse. Nevertheless, the scope of the Article 286 of Criminal Code was expanded after the amendment in 2012, which seems to have become an exception in the chapter of personal interests in the Criminal Code. The amendment considers a person who maltreats child or intends to make a profit by committing an offense against child’s legal Interest of survival and body shall be a crime of danger. In practice, as the amended Article 286 of the Criminal Code was not applicable to child abuse cases, the Ministry of Justice amended the Article 286 again in 2017 when it promulgated the draft amendment to the Criminal Code. Yet, if we consider issues such as legal characteristic of crimes against child, types of criminal behavior, and concursusactionum, we would recognize that the Article 286 does not have legal effect. In other words, since the Article 286 has its congenital normative dilemmas, it would never be suitable to any child abuse cases. I further explore how the Western countries discussed childhood and child abuse, and compare it with Taiwan’s historical context of childhood. Based on the findings, I consider that the Legislative Branch insisted not to continue to amend the Article 286 reveals that the Taiwanese modern society’s hidden imagination of vulnerability of children and demonstrates its protectionism superficially. Accordingly, the Article 286 would not only be symbolic legislation, but also possibly be arbitrarily abused in the disciplined society.
This article addresses that it is not suitable to punish child abuse by means of the Article 286 of the Criminal Code, because of the unique character of child abuse cases. Given that Article 286 of the Criminal Code’s inability and with risks of being symbolic law, I conclude that the fundamental way would be to admit its inability and abolish this code.

並列關鍵字

Child abuse ； Article 286 of the Criminal Code ； Offenses of Child Development ； Childhood ； Images of children

參考文獻

李茂生（2012）。〈妨害幼童自然發育罪釋疑──兼評最高法院96年度台上字第3481號判決〉，《法令月刊》，63卷12期，頁1-20。

李茂生（2012）。〈論義務者遺棄罪的罪質與危險犯的概念（上）─兼評最高法院99年度台上字第3048號判決〉，《法令月刊》，63卷2期，頁14-27。

李茂生（2012）。〈論義務者遺棄罪的罪質與危險犯的概念（下）─兼評最高法院99年度台上字第3048號判決〉，《法令月刊》，63卷3期，頁11-33。

周怡宏（2006）。〈兒童虐待與疏忽的兒科醫師觀點〉，《領導護理》，7卷2期，頁11-27。

施慧玲（1998）。〈論我國兒童少年性剝削防治立法──以兒童少年福利保護爲中心理念之法律社會學觀點〉，《中正大學法學集刊》，2期，頁45-76。