電子遊戲場業管理法制面與實施面之探究

Research of Legal Aspects and Implementation on Electronic Game Arcade Business Regulation Act in Taiwan

楊宗灝(TSUNG-HAO YANG)

指導教授 ： 陳櫻琴

中原大學/法學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201700007

摘要

我國現行管理電子遊戲場業制定有「電子遊戲場業管理條例」，由於早年電玩產業動輒牽涉黑道、賭博犯罪等問題，1990年由教育部主管，同年12月制定「遊藝場業輔導管理規則」，1996年周人蔘電玩弊案爆發後，行政院函示改由經濟部主管，1997年制定「電子遊藝場業輔導管理規則」，至2000年三讀通過電子遊戲場業管理條例，取代行政命令的電子遊藝場業輔導管理規則，成為現今管理的法源基礎。
電子遊戲場業管理條例第2條規定「本條例所稱主管機關：在中央為經濟部；在直轄市為直轄市政府；在縣 (市) 為縣 (市) 政府。」同法第20條第1項規定「直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關得定期或不定期派員檢查電子遊戲場之營業，電子遊戲場業負責人、營業場所管理人或從業人員不得規避、妨礙或拒絕。」然而實務上進行行政檢查單位，卻由直轄市、各縣市政府警察局主導。依據行政程序法第11條第5項明定「管轄權非依法規不得設定或變更」的「管轄權恆定原則」，既然電子遊戲場業的主管機關在中央為經濟部，在地方為直轄市、縣市政府，為何實務執行面卻必須仰賴警察透過職務協助進行行政檢查，與過去電玩業經營長期負面形象，及警察職務協助範圍包山包海有關係。同時因各直轄市、縣市政府警察局預算編列掌握在地方政府手中，因此各地警察單位無不將此行政協助視為最高指導原則。
1990年電玩主管機關由內政部轉移至教育部，就是希望避免警察主導非法電玩業查緝，衍生收賄、貪瀆問題。然而制定電子遊戲場業管理條例之後，不但無法防微杜漸，各地警察單位風紀問題仍層出不窮。此外各直轄市、縣市政府透過地方自治立法權，無限擴張電子遊戲場業管理條例第9條「電子遊戲場業之營業場所，應距離國民中、小學、高中、職校、醫院50公尺以上。」規定，動輒以數倍至數十倍營業距離，限制業者經營電子遊戲場，導致合法經營業者不斷透過訴願、行政訴訟捍衛生存權，最終走上聲請釋憲一途，也促成大法官在2016年6月做出釋字第738號解釋。
該號解釋文認台北市、新北市、桃園市等直轄市政府，自行制定電子遊戲場業自治條例，對電子遊戲場所應距離國民中小學、高中、職校、醫院800公尺以上規定，符合憲法「比例原則」、「法律保留原則」及「中央與地方權限劃分」等規定，做成合憲解釋。然地方政府必須配合客觀環境及規範效果之變遷，隨時檢討而為合理之調整。試問既然電玩業過去被視為「洪水猛獸」，釋字第738號解釋文中又未強制各地方政府必須對於營業距離為「合理之調整」，各地方自治團體又如何會放寬對電玩業者營業距離限制？
隨著網路科技及智慧型手機崛起，電子遊戲場業幾乎已成「夕陽產業」，特別是家用次世代主機地位，已大幅取代「普通級」電子遊戲場地位。「限制級」電子遊戲場也因電腦、手機隨時可連結網路，逐漸被虛擬賭博網站取代。然而立法者不思如何防堵新興網路賭博犯罪，卻屢對電子遊戲場業制定高營業門檻，誠如大法官釋字第738號理由書中所謂，以自治條例所欲達成維護社會安寧、善良風俗、公共安全及國民身心健康等公益之立法目的「洵屬正當」，所採取電子遊戲場業營業場所應予特定場所保持規定距離之手段，不能為與該目的之達成無關聯。然而網路世界賭博犯罪幾乎是「零距離」，只要擁有可連結上網的硬體配備，甚至可免費下載程式、登錄帳號賭博，對比夕陽產業的傳統電子遊戲場，還需受制於營業距離限制，實有違憲法保障人民生存權真諦。

關鍵字

行政檢查；行政調查；職務協助；地方自治；營業自由

並列摘要

Taiwan has “Electronic Game Arcade Business Regulation Act” as the current regulations about electronic game business. In the reasons of involving in crimes and gambling in early years, the electronic game business had been allocated to be under the authority of Ministry of Education in 1990, and on December in the same year, the “Rules of Management and Consulting for Electronic Game Business” was made. By 1996, an electronic game business scandal of Chow Ren Tsen event occurred. The Executive Yuan replied and modified the authority bureau to Ministry of Education and made “Regulations of Management and Counseling for Electronic Games” in 1997. No later than 2000, the legislative three read process had been completed for this act, which substitute the Executive orders to be the real legal legitimacy for the current electronic game business.
In the Article 2 of “Electronic Game Arcade Business Regulation Act,” the authorities refer to Ministry of Economic Affairs in the central level; and local government for the local level. In Item 1, Act 20, the authority can check the business space of electronic game regularly or not, and the people in charge of or working for the space cannot refuse, obstacle or resist it. But in reality, the executive checks are led by police department of local government. According to Administrative Procedure Law, Rule 11, item 5, the authorship cannot be reset or modified which is so called formalization of jurisdiction. Why the electronic game business authorized by central government, Ministry of Economic Affairs but practiced by police departments of local governments? Which combined with the enormous negative images in the past that the scandals and corruption of the police and the electronic game business. And because of the annual budget was controlled by local government, the executive-led system has been therefore firmly built.
In 1990, the authority of electronic game business was transferred from Ministry of Interior Affairs to Ministry of Education in the reason of advoiding further scandal and corruptions of the police-led check system to electronic game business. But after the made of Electronic Game Arcade Business Regulation Act, the problems of police-led checking have been re-emerged endlessly. On the other hand, the local government over-explained the Electronic Game Arcade Business Regulation Act, Act 9, the electronic game business space should keep in distance over 50 meters from elementary schools, high schools, and hospitals, which restricted the rights of electronic game business running. After endless protests, judicial review no. 738 was finally made.
In the review, the municipal cities, such as Taipei City, New Taipei City, and Taoyuan City, shall made their own regulations about electronic game business, which interpret the distance from elementary schools, high schools, and hospitals should be over 800 meters far. That would more meet the principle of proportionality and separation of powers. But the local governments have the rights to modify according to the objective conditions. I have to raise the question for that, since the electronic game business had been seen as the monster for the society, why does the judicial review no. 738 widen the range of reasonable adjusting power? And how does the local government estimate the distance restriction among such enormous interests groups.
With the raise of internet industry and smart phone, electronic game business is almost a sunset industry, especially the coming of the era for home video game console, which substitute the status of electronic game business in the past. Besides, the substitution of general level of electronic game, the restricted ones are also substituted by laptops and smart phones. The law-makers do not have the senses of prohibit the internet gambling crimes, but to raise the business restriction for electronic games. Just as the judicial review No. 738 mentions, the distance should be kept because of the law-making should accord to the purpose of maintaining social peace, good traditions, public safety, and citizens’ health. Now a day that the zero-distance of internet gambling and crimes which could even be downloadable for free. The reality is more like to need to be concerned rather than the restriction for a dying sunset industry, electronic game business.

並列關鍵字

executive check；executive investigation；positional assistance；local governance；business free

參考文獻

林文清，地方自治與自治立法權，揚智文化事業股份有限公司，(2004.02)。

古承宗，危險的電子遊戲場？─評析大法官釋字第646號解釋，月旦釋讀文摘第10期，頁64，(2011.08)。

李惠宗，地方自治立法監督之研究，研考雙月刊第229期，頁75至76，(2002.06)。

邱映曦，從「數位休閒娛樂產業」之法制需求談我國娛樂業法制規範之可能性，科技法律透析，頁15至20，(2005.07)。

徐良維，國家權力干預人民基本權之合法性與正當性，政策研究學報第6期，頁270至295，(2006.06)。