本文針對藏匿人犯罪、湮滅刑事證據罪、偽證罪與誣告罪,整理其歷史與各國立法例,探討其保護法益並明確化各個犯罪構成要件。通說認為此四罪均在保護國家的刑事司法作用,但是本文認為我國刑法的法定刑設計,可看出偽證罪與誣告罪亦保護個人法益,也就是保護個人免於錯誤的人身自由拘束;至於藏匿人犯罪與湮滅刑事證據罪則否。依照法益的不同,可將我國刑法第九章的藏匿人犯罪與湮滅刑事證據罪解釋為使人出罪的類型,這些行為乃在使真正的犯罪人免於刑事追訴,因而破壞到國家的刑事司法作用;我國刑法第十章的偽證罪與誣告罪,則是屬於入人於罪的類型,這些行為除了破壞國家的刑事司法作用外,尚產生使人受拘禁的可能性,因此法定刑才高達七年。透過這樣的重新解釋,才能使刑事訴訟制度上的運作邏輯一致。
This essay, by referring to variant criminal statutes and their histories of some countries, specifies the underlying legal goods (Rechtsgut) and legal requirements of Crime of Concealment of Offenders, Crime of Perjury, Crime of Destruction of Criminal Evidence, and Crime of Malicious Accusation. It is commonly held that the four categories of crime are designed to protect the function of criminal justice. This essay, however, concurs with more reasons that Crime of Perjury and Malicious Accusation also protect personal legal goods such as personal liberty from wrongful restraints in ways which Crime of Concealment of Offenders and Destruction of Criminal Evidence do not, by examining their structures of legal sentence. Furthermore, by examining their underlying legal goods, the Crime of Concealment of Offenders and Destruction of Criminal Evidence, which are regulated in the Chapter Nine of the Criminal Code, may be explained as types of prevention of conviction and thus violations to the function of criminal justice, because they are committed in order to hide real offenders from criminal prosecution. As to the Crime of Perjury and Malicious Accusation, which are regulated in the Chapter Ten of the Criminal Code, they are committed not only to violate the function of criminal justice but also to create a possibility of wrongful confinement of individual persons. That’s why they can be seen as types of frame-up and thus are punishable for as high as seven years of legal sentence. By this kind of re-orientation, logical consistency in our criminal trials might be achieved.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。