論煽惑他人違背法令罪

煽惑罪於我國實務上大量被使用，然而在其構成要件寬鬆且立法理由付之闕如之情況下，本條規範之正當性具有疑慮。本文藉由比較法制史上煽惑罪發展之歷史脈絡，在比較具有相同立法模式之煽惑罪下，歸納出煽惑罪本質上屬於例外狀態之立法，因而使其成為主權者排除內包之機制。雖然，煽惑罪之本質為例外狀態之立法，然而，在我國立法模式中則是將煽惑罪規範於作為常態性立法之刑法中，因此就煽惑罪之正當性審查仍需回歸以法益理論為基礎，僅以國家法益中公權力的正常運作作為本罪之保護法益，忽略刑法之保護對象仍應以個人權利為核心，本文認為應以副法益理論作為限縮煽惑罪之法益理論，而在侵害個人法益之情形下始得連結到國家法益因此受到侵害。在副法益理論之審查下煽惑罪成罪之可能顯然超出保護法益之範圍，而應予以限縮，在比較法上之限縮方式有以明顯而立即危險原則或是可罰的違法性對於煽惑罪為限縮之解釋。然而，本文認為我國煽惑罪之問題在於抽象危險犯之立法方式，因此，於立法論上應透過修正公然要件為「公然於集會遊行中」以及增加「足以侵害個人法益」的行為適性要求以解決煽惑罪之正當性疑慮，而在現行構成要件之解釋上則應以煽惑個人生命身體相關之犯罪始成立本罪。

關鍵字

煽惑罪；例外狀態；公共秩序；法益；明顯而立即危險；適性犯

並列摘要

Incitement offence is widely used in judicial practice. However, the actus reus of incitement offence is ambiguous and lack legislative explanation, creating doubt on the legitimacy of this crime. This article finds that the essence of the legal structure for incitement offence is an example of state of exception by inducing familiar legal structure of incitement offence in comparative legal history. This legal structure in state of exception makes incitement offence become an excluding-and-including mechanism that is predominated by the Sovereign. Although the essence of incitement offence is based on legal structure of state of exception, incitement offence is enacted in common criminal code in Taiwan; therefore, the legitimacy of incitement offence should be reviewed by legal interest theory. However, regarding “Governmental function” as the only probable legal interest ignores the core of the criminal code that establishes on protection of personal interest. This article proposed that incitement offence should be limited by the theory of sub legal interests which regards personal interest as the precondition of national interest. The probable situation of incitement offence may obviously exceed the scope of legal interest under the review of the theory of sub legal interests. Therefore, this kind of situation should be limited. On the view of comparative law, there comes “clear and present danger principle” and “substantial illegality theory” to reduce the scope of application. In order to solve the legitimacy issues of incitement offence, on the level of legislation, the element of should be replaced by the element of “in publicly assembly and parade” and revise the element of “capability of interference with personal interests”. Since incitement offence is established as the crime of abstract danger, this article suggests that the “capability of interference with personal interests” should be taken into account as the key element when interpreting the term “public inciting another to commit an offense”.