選舉中誹謗言論相關問題之探討-以公職人員選舉罷免法第104條為中心

A Study on the Election Defamatory Speech: Focused on the Article 104 of the Civil Servants Election And Recall Act

林于捷(Yu-Chieh Lin)

指導教授 ： 盧映潔

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2013年)

摘要

觀察我國中央至地方大小選舉，為了求勝候選人間各種花招百出，型塑出臺灣獨特的選舉文化。公職人員選舉罷免法於民國69年5月即制定公布，我國選舉誹謗言論管制已經存在已久，明示我國對於選舉公平保護久受認同，然從誹謗訴訟判決看來，因選舉誹謗罪而被判刑者也在所多有，每到選舉期間，報導候選人相互攻訐的內容幾乎都會充斥著當時的政治新聞，若為全國性選舉之候選人，被惡意指控的內容及哭訴澄清的畫面幾乎都會上各大報頭條，意味著我國選舉文化並未提昇。
全文分為六章。本文以我國公職人員選舉罷免法第104條文中心，探討有關選舉中誹謗言論相關規範與問題，檢視公職人員選舉罷免法第104條規定保護之法益，區辨比較公職人員選舉罷免法第104條選舉誹謗罪與刑法第310條刑法誹謗罪之異、同，有無刑法誹謗罪不罰事由及美國真實惡意原則之類推適用，並釐清訴訟法上公職人員選舉罷免法第104條與刑法第310條不罰事由之舉證責任歸屬，同時，輔以比較法之角度參考日本、韓國、西班牙、法國之相關立法例，作為我國未來修法之借鏡。本文認為應明確區辨公職人員選舉罷免法第104條與刑法第310條不同，方能有效提昇選舉風氣，平衡保障選舉、言論自由與公平選舉制度。
另本文數個實務判決，比較、探究其缺失，並根據司法院大法官解釋及本文提出之法理之前提下，找出解決或因應之方法，於最末加以撰文建議之，希冀改善我國日趨惡化之選舉風氣，減少候選人之間相互攻訐、詆毀和造謠中傷等負面競選。

關鍵字

選舉誹謗；刑法誹謗；公平選舉；真實惡意原則

並列摘要

If we observe the civil servants elections in Taiwan, including elections for central government and local division seats , we can easily find that many candidates will try every means and tricks to manipulate the results in order to win the election, hence shaped the unique election campaign culture of Taiwan.

The Civil Servants Election And Recall Act has been passed and enacted in May 1980, which means regulations for electoral defamatory speech has already existed for a long time, and protection of fair election seems to be a common recognition. However, there still exist defamatory speech during every election period, even some former candidates were sentenced due to such speech. Whenever there is a national election, malicious accusations toward other candidates or cries for clarification always pop up in newspaper headline, shown the progress of our election tradition is pretty limited.

This thesis is divided into six chapters. Based on Article 104 of Civil Servants Election And Recall Act, the author discuss the regulation and relating problems of electoral defamatory speech , examine the legal interest(Rechtsgut) of this very Article, distinguish the commonness and differences between Article 310 of the Criminal Code(offense of slander), find out whether the impunity of criminal code(Article 310 Section 3,and Article 311 of Criminal Code) and the ‘actual malice theory’ founded from the U.S. will apply or analogize to electoral defamatory situations. This thesis also clarifies the burden of proof which the accuser bear are not the same in these two counts. To illustrate, the author also take a comparative approach, search the relevant legislations of Japan, South Korea, Spain, and France. This thesis argues that a clear distinction should be made between Article 104 of Civil Servants Election And Recall Act and Article 310 of Criminal Code, this clarification could not only protect the freedom of speech, but also promote the quality and fairness of elections.

In addition, the author examine some previous judgements to show the defects of reasoning based on current theory, and provide a new theory model as a better solution. The author hopes this new theory will effectively deter electoral defamatory speech and stop negative campaign traditions.

並列關鍵字

Electoral Defamatory Speech； Article 310 of the Criminal Code； fairness of elections；actual malice theory

參考文獻

林永謀，刑事訴訟法釋論（中），自版，2006年。

林東茂，刑法綜覽，一品，2007年。

黃朝義，刑事訴訟法證據篇，元照，2002年。

謝哲勝主編，法律經濟學，五南，2007年。

王兆鵬，刑事舉證責任理論--由英美法理論出發，國立臺灣大學法學論叢第28期第4卷，1997 年7月。