刑法第三百六十條干擾電腦或相關設備罪 —立法問題的研究—

Interference with Computer or Related Equipment Crime-Legislative Question Research

陸峻岳(Chun-Yueh Lu)

指導教授 ： 徐偉群

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/CYCU.2011.00058

摘要

摘要
我國刑法體系對於刑法章節的設計，是以欲保護「法益」的種類與範圍作為區分。在法條構成要件的設計上不會特別去限制實施犯罪的「犯罪方式」，與侵害客體受侵害時的「侵害態樣」。在整個侵害法益的過程中，由於「行為人」參與犯罪所扮演的「角色」，及「犯罪行為」對於實現「犯罪結果」的「重要性」與「直接」或「間接」的關係，而有「主犯」、「從犯」與「預備行為」、「著手行為」等不同名稱與原則的設計，在處罰刑度的「量刑」上亦不同。也由於有「競合關係」的概念，使得整體犯罪過程中「犯罪行為」的「行為數」與侵害「法益」的「種類與範圍」的不同判斷結果，在適用相關法條時會產生不同「競合關係」的結果，而衍伸出處罰刑度「量刑」上的考量。
刑法第360條在保護法益的設計上採「綜合性」與「個人兼及社會」的保護法益，構成要件的設計上則限制其犯罪的方式需以「非物理性」的方式為之，並排除「毀損」侵害態樣的適用。這樣的立法設計將會對法條的適用、處罰刑度的設計及與其他相關法條在競合關係上產生一些影響。例如在法條的適用上，實施「物理性」的犯罪方式或導致「毀損」的侵害態樣將會被排除，而無助於立法目的的達成。另外在處罰刑度「量刑」的設計上，如果當「同一個」干擾電腦的「犯罪行為」侵害個人「生命」法益及個人「財產」法益或「個人」財產法益及「社會」財產法益時，卻要在「同一個」規範下作處罰刑度「量刑」的考量。在與其他相關法條的「競合關係」上，亦有可能產生無法明確判斷其競合結果的情形發生，而無法適切的在處罰刑度的「量刑」上作考量。舉例來說，當變更電磁紀錄又同時造成干擾電腦運作的犯罪行為同時構成刑法第360條與第 359條時，在「競合關係」的判斷上，由於兩者均無法明確的解釋與定位其背後欲保護「法益」的內涵為何，因此無法明確的判斷出競合後其兩者關係的結果為何，亦無法適切的在處罰刑度的「量刑」上作考量。
從刑法第360條相關國外的立法例來看，美國與德國所採取的立法設計是不同的，而其原有刑法體系的相關原則，對於其立法例的立法設計則有其一定的關係與影響。德國刑法體系上其立法的設計，與我國刑法體系的立法設計較為相近。美國刑法體系上對於規範具體犯罪種類的立法設計，則較不重視其「法益」保護種類與範圍的區分，亦無「主、從犯」與「競合關係」的概念，在處罰刑度「量刑」的設計上，亦無針對其作考量。
本文研究的目的在於藉由美國與德國在相關立法例的立法設計上的特色，來檢視我國現行法在立法設計上產生的問題，並進而提出回歸以「法益」為核心的立法模式來設計立法規範、確立立法規範保護「法益」之所在、立法規範構成要件設計的「系統化」、整體犯罪過程中屬於「幫助犯」的行為回歸幫助犯體系來規範及對於「重大法益」受到侵害時其保護制度的建立等五項具體建議，期望這些具體的建議，有助於立法者解決立法設計上產生的問題。

關鍵字

干擾電腦

並列摘要

The legal articles design of our country’s criminal law system is categorized on the basis of types and scopes of the intended protection of "legal interests". The design of the article’s legal elements is not specifically restricted to the "approach" of its implementation, or to the "infringement state" of the infringed object. According to the "role" played by "actor" within a crime, and the "direct" or "indirect" influence as well as the "importance" of act contributing to the infringement, there will be different degrees of punishments applied to the so called "principles" and "accessories" , the "preparatory acts" and the "commitment". On the other hand, according to the “competing rules of the laws”, when it comes to more than one criminal article applying to a single case, people should choose between the multiple laws only according to the “number” of the “act” and the “infringement result”, but not the "approaches" employed by the defendant.
The design of Criminal Code Article 360 in protection of legal interests adopts the principles of "comprehensiveness" and "for both individuality and society", and the design of composing elements requires the crime be committed with "non-physical" approach, and excludes application of the physical damage. Such legislative design will somewhat affect appropriate application of legal provisions, design of punishment degree and the competing rule of laws. For example, on the appropriate application of legal provisions, implementing " physical" criminal approach or leading to physical damage will be excluded, but that results in non-fulfill of the legislation purposes. In addition, in the design of punishment degree of "sentencing", if "the same" computer interference "criminal acts" infringe whether personal "life" legal interests and personal "property" legal interests; or "personal" property legal interests and "social" property legal interests, "same" standard will have to be applied for the punishment "sentencing" considerations, which is consequently unfair. With respect to the " competing rules of the laws ", the design of the 36th Chapter, including Article 360, may leads to a dilemma in deciding which article to choose, hence making it impossible to decide the appropriate punishment degree of "sentencing". Take it as an example, the criminal act that changes electromagnetic records and at the same time causes interference of computer operations will simultaneously constitute criminal offenses against Article 360 and Article 359, but judgment based on the " competing rules of the laws” will make both articles unable to clearly explain and specify the contents behind the intended protection of "legal interest", consequently unable to clearly determine the results of the competing relationship between the two, and accordingly unable to make appropriate consideration on the punishment degree of "sentencing".
From the perspective of foreign legislative cases related to our Criminal Law Article 360, the United States and Germany adopt different legislation design, and their original principles of criminal justice system are related to and have influence on their legislative cases design. The German legislation design of the criminal justice system is more similar to ours. The United States criminal justice system in regulating specific types of crimes on the legislative design, however, pays less attention to the types and scopes of the protected "legal interests", has neither the concept of "culprit, accomplice" and "competing-collaborating relationship", nor consideration of punishment degree "sentencing" in the design.
The purposes of this study are, by observing the features of the United States and Germany in the relevant legislation design of legislative cases, to examine the problems of our current laws resulted from the legislation, to further propose a return to "legal interest" as the core of the legislative model for the design of legislative norms, to firmly establish legislative norms to protect where "legal interest" stands, to build "systematic" design of composing elements by legislative norms, to return "accomplice" act in the whole criminal process back to accomplice category for regulation, and to establish protection system against "critical interest" infringement. I hope the above 5 specific proposals can help legislators address the issues of legislation design.

並列關鍵字

Interference with Computer or Related Equipment

參考文獻

陳煥生，刑法新增訂妨害電腦使用罪章之介紹，中華法學，10期，頁6-10（2003）。

葉亭巌，德國刑法第41次修正-「反駭客法」之簡介，科技法律透析，20卷4期，頁15-22（2008）。

蔡美智，談網路犯罪，資訊法務透析，頁35-40（1999）。

黃榮堅，電腦犯罪的刑法問題，台大法學論叢，25卷4期，頁197-228（1996）。

蔡蕙芳，電磁紀錄無權取得行為之刑法規範，中正法學集刊，13期，頁97-196（2003）。