犯罪結社罪之可罰性基礎及解釋策略

The Legitimacy of Organized Crime Prevention Act and the Strategy of Interpretation

周靖安(Chin-An Chou)

指導教授 ： 黃榮堅

共同指導教授 ： 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/NTU201703841

摘要

本文旨在嘗試為文獻上主要集中在如何有效管制的犯罪結社罪尋求一個具刑法正當性的可罰性基礎，並以此作為構成要件解釋的基本前提。本文指出關於犯罪結社罪法益的說法雖然在形式上略有差異，實質上均蘊含對潛在風險抗制的預防導向思維，並深入反省此一思維形成的社會脈絡，以及原本作為刑法正當性基礎之法益理論在其中的定位與危機。在反省主流的個人法益學說對前置化集體法益證立的缺失後，本文採取以個人自律為基礎的自由法概念，重新檢視可能作為本罪法益之諸多說法，並就其中較具開展潛力的「國家武力壟斷」觀點在本文的基礎之上，重新證立國家獨占強制權能實行權限的正當性，以「消除開啟國家程序之現實條件」為本罪不法內涵，而本罪之實質可罰性基礎，則是市民的最低協力義務。最後，本文以此觀點重構既有實證法之構成要件解釋策略，主張應以「事件關聯」為解釋原則，考慮個別要件與國家功能障礙之間的關聯性，以奠定犯罪結社罪的獨立可罰性質。

關鍵字

犯罪結社罪 ； 犯罪組織 ； 集體法益 ； 風險刑法 ； 自律 ； 國家武力壟斷 ； 強制 ； 市民的協力義務

並列摘要

This thesis focuses on the legitimacy in criminal law of the Organized Crime Prevention Act, which has not drawn sufficient attention from the researchers compared to the perspective of effective prevention, and hence no foundation has been established to help form the strategy of interpretation based on the research result. The opinions on the incrimination legitimacy of founding/joining a criminal organization, despite the apparent difference among themselves, actually share the common basic view of “criminal law dealing with risks” and set risk prevention as the priority purpose of criminal law. By pointing out this fact, this thesis attempts to explain the social context of the emerging of this paradigm and the following crisis of “the theory of legal good,” which used to be viewed as the fundational theory to examine the legitimacy of criminal law. After the critical analysis of the “theory of personal legal good” on the issue of “pre-incrimanational collective legal good,” this thesis re-examines a variety of opinions according to the concept of law based on personal autonomy and extends the idea of “monopoly on violence” by justifying the monopoly of coercive power in the liberal idea of state. In conclusion, this thesis suggests that the incrimination of founding/joining a criminal organization could be supported by the fact that such behavior would interfere with the activation of the state’s procedure for resolving the conflict of rights, and the legitimate reason for the Act is the citizens’ joint obligation. Therefore, the interpretation of the Act should follow the principle of “incident-relation” and emphasize the interference of the state’s procedure in order to correspond with the legitimacy of the Act.

並列關鍵字

criminal organization ； organized crime ； collective legal good ； criminal law dealing with risks ； autonomy ； monopoly on violence ； coercion ； citizens’ joint obligation

參考文獻

16. 李傑清（2001），《剝奪組織犯罪所得之研究－台灣及日本組織犯罪現象與對策之比較》，台北：元照。

40. 王正嘉（2012），〈網際網路上之刑法妨害名譽罪適用與界限—以實體與虛擬的二分社會論之〉，《政大法學評論》，128期，頁143-202。

44. 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。

50. 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。

51. 周家瑜（2014），〈霍布斯論自然法與政治義務〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，50期，頁59-100。