誘捕之研究

A Study on Entrapment

羅天佑(Tian-You Lo)

指導教授 ： 吳景芳

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2012年)

摘要

本文所欲探討之核心內容為為誘捕之界線及其法效果。學者的文獻方面參考了台灣與美國學者之期刊文章與專書。實務見解方面，則歸納了我國之判決與美國聯邦與州之判決。
首先，無論是單純迎合行為人之需求，抑或是加強行為人之犯意，甚或是引起行為人之犯意，均係執法機關對於犯罪行為發生，有積極行為介入，因此皆屬本文中所欲討論「誘捕」之範疇。其次，誘捕並非全無益處而僅有害處。就像雙面刃，若其界線明確，得收偵查迅速精準之效。因此應如何劃分其界線與建構其法律效果則為一刻不容緩的議題。
於比較法分析上，本文從美國法之探討出發，分別分析了誘捕於美國聯邦法院之發展—採主觀之審查標準；美國州法院之發展—偏向採客觀之審查標以及美國學者與美國模範刑法典對誘捕之定位—屬實體法之問題。
接著，本文回歸於我國目前實務運作方式之分析，討論我國對於誘捕之實務見解，分成誘捕之審查標準與誘捕之法律效果做為討論重點。我國實務目前採主觀之審查標準以及誘捕之實體法與程序法效果兼而有之。於此兩點試分析出我國實務見解所反映出之問題。
最後分析美國對於誘捕之解決方法，實際於我國操作時是否具可行性。意即，美國對誘捕之發展對我國是否具參考價值。因此合先討論誘捕之定位，即討論美國之定位是否適宜做為我國法之參考，次再分析誘捕之審查標準及法律效果就應採何種，最後本文提出一套可供實務運作之審查流程。
本文認為，誘捕於我國應屬實體法之議題。因此於法效果上，本文認為應採誘捕之實體法效果。誘捕應屬於責任層次之問題，適用期待可能性之理論，而認為若成立誘捕，則該行為人不具期待可能性而得阻卻責任。最後，關於誘捕之審查標準，本文認為應採客觀之審查標準，並以客觀之審查標準限縮期待可能性範圍，意即誘捕之範圍。參考目前民眾對執法人員執法之觀感，審酌執法人員之行為是否逾越其執法應有之限度，而認定行為人是否具期待可能性之標準。

關鍵字

陷害教唆 ； 犯罪挑唆 ； 誘捕偵查 ； 誘陷抗辯 ； 證據禁止 ； 阻卻責任事由

並列摘要

The boundary and legal effect of entrapment is the main research in the essay.Writing materiels from essays and books of Taiwan and the U.S. Scholars, also from judgments in Taiwan supreme courts and the U.S. federal and states courts.
First of all, whether it is to cater to the needs of the actor or is to strengthen the intention of the actor, or even cause the intention of the actor, which are all due to the positive interventions for the occurring of criminal acts of law enforcement agencies. Therefore, these are all within the scope of "entrapment" in this essay. Second of all, entrapment has the pros and cons. It's like a double-edged thing. If the boundary of entrapment is clear, it helps to reach the goal of a rapid and precise investigation. Thus, to draw the line of the boundary and to construct the legal effects are critical issues.
Starting from the research of U.S. law, this essay includes analysis of the development of entrapment in the United States federal courts which apply the subject version of entrapment, and state courts which tend to apply the object version of entrapment, as well as opinions of American scholars and Model Penal Code that indicate that the issue of entrapment should be positioned in substantial criminal law.
Then back to the analysis of the practical operations in Taiwan, to discuss the practical views of the boundary of entrapment, which divided into 2 parts: the standard of examination for entrapment; and the legal effect of entrapment. The courts in Taiwan apply the subject version of entrapment. But the legal effect of entrapment have no consent, both substantial and procedural legal effects have it’s own supporters.The essay try to analyze the current status of entrapment in practice and the problems of entrapment which reflected from the current status in practice in Taiwan.
Finally, to consult the solutions of entrapment which derived from the U.S. in order to find out how it works in Taiwan, i.e. whether the development of entrapment in the U.S. has any value to Taiwan or not. For the purpose, first discuss the entrapment positioning. Try to figure out whether the positioning in the U.S. is appropriate as the reference to Taiwan or not. And then analyze the standard of examination for entrapment and the legal effect of entrapment. Finally concludes a examination process which is available for the practical operation.
In conclusion, entrapment should be regarded as an issue in substantial criminal law. So as for the legal effect of entrapment should apply the substantive legal effect.The entrapment out to be put into the imputability in the three-level system, and take advantage the theory of possibility of expectation. If the case belongs to entrapment, the actor has no possibility of expectation and can deter the responsibility of the act. Also, the object version of entrapment should be applied, which is used to reduction the range of the possibility of expectation, i.e. the range of entrapment. Refer to the society impression to those law enforcement officers, the court consider the whethere the law enforcement officers do something outrageous or not, in order to judge wethere the actor is beyond the possibility of expectation or not.

並列關鍵字

Agent provocateur ； Entrapment ； Entrapment defense ； Exclusion of evidence ； Excuse

參考文獻

（3）林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法(上冊 總論篇)，自版，2003年9月。

9. 蔡墩銘，刑事責任與期待可能性，法令月刊，第41卷第10期，1990年10月。

4. 林鈺雄，國家機關挑唆犯罪之法律效果，國立台灣大學法學論叢，第35卷第1期，2006年1月。

5. 周靜妮、曾建元，我國執法人員誘陷行為之法律果，育達研究叢刊，2003年3月。

4. Philip E. Carlan, Ragan A. Downey, Lisa S. Nored, An Introduction To Criminal Law, (2011).