盜伐林木罪之法律問題研究

Research on The Law of Timber Illegal-logging

廖展毅(Chan-Yi Liao)

指導教授 ： 薛智仁

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201701700

摘要

「山老鼠」一詞在我國社會新聞中屢見不鮮，其所適用之法律條文為森林法第50、52條，惟在其與刑法第320、321條竊盜罪文義相似的情況下，導致司法實務在處理這樣的案件時常係直接適用刑法竊盜罪之解釋方法，而以保護「財產法益」的方式去解釋各構成要件，如此便無法符合森林法的立法目的，因此本研究旨在探求森林法第50、52條盜伐林木罪真正的保護法益為何，及應如何解釋各個構成要件。
本研究先蒐集並整理司法實務歷年來對於盜伐林木案件的見解，在得出了大致上係將其當成保護財產法益的結論後，會再從環境刑法、其他環境相似法、立法歷程及林業政策的轉變幾個不同面向去分析，得出盜伐林木罪其實並不如司法實務所認為般係要保護財產法益，而應是保護「環境法益」的見解。
接著從森林學的角度切入去思考此環境法益的具體內涵為何，在加入刑法的思考後，本研究認為應係指森林所能帶來的「保安效用」與「自然保育功能」兩項，再進一步扣緊此內涵回過頭去解釋盜伐林木罪之構成要件，最後得到的結論係「竊取」此項構成要件要素應解釋為「行為人先砍伐林木致使與主幹分離，並且取出於森林之外」，此外宜在立法論上改採具體危險犯的立法模式，並且修法廢止現行加重條款中數款不具刑罰正當性之條款。

關鍵字

盜伐林木 ； 山老鼠 ； 環境刑法 ； 環境法益 ； 森林法

並列摘要

The word “ Timber illegal-logger “ is common in news , and related to the Forest Act Article 50 and Article 52 in Taiwan . Because the literal meaning of the Forest Act Article 50 and Article 52 are similar to the Criminal Code Article 320 and Article 321 , Judges and prosecutors usually use the way of protecting legal interest of personal property which is the elements of the offence of larceny to explain the elements of crime in the Forest Act . It is not the legislative purpose of the Forest Act . This research is going to explore the true legal interests of the Forest Act Article 50 and Article 52 and try to explain the elements of crime.
First , this research collects and analyzes the judicial practice of timber illegal-logging , and it comes the conclusion that judges used to think the elements of the crime of timber illegal-logging is personal property . Then , this research analyzes and comes the conclusion that the crime of timber illegal-logging protects the legal interest of environment , instead of the legal interest of personal property from environmental criminal act , other similar environmental act , legislative process and the change of forest policy .
The connotation of the legal interest of environment is “ feature of soil and water conservation ” and “ feature of nature conservation ” from Forestry and the Criminal Code . After using this concept to explain the elements of crime of timber illegal-logging , the conclusion is that the word of “ steal ” in the elements of crime should be considered as “ the criminal first logs timber and then gets the wood out of the forest . ” Besides , the legislator should use the legislative model of “ concrete crime of danger ” , and abolish some clauses which do not have legitimacy of punishment of Forest Act Article 52.

並列關鍵字

Timber illegal-logging ； Timber illegal-logger ； Environmental Criminal Act ； Legal Interest of Environment ； Forest Act

參考文獻

行政院農業委員會（2013）。《耕耘臺灣農業大事紀－林業印記》。臺北：農委會。

林東茂（2009）。《刑法綜覽》，六版。臺北：一品。

王俊豪、劉小蘭（2010）。〈生物多樣性公約對我國農地管制之啟示：兼論歐盟與德國之制度設計〉，《農業推廣文獻》，55輯，頁179-200。

李永展（2006）。〈環境正義與生物多樣性的共生策略－達娜伊谷案例分析〉，《建築與規劃學報》，7卷1期，頁19-45。

林東茂（1994）。〈危險犯的法律性質〉，《臺大法學論叢》，23卷2期，頁237-304。