「以刑逼民」與法文化衝突－論近現代臺灣假性財產犯罪現象

當代臺灣的法律體系中，民事案件與刑事案件各自適用不同的法律規範、訴訟程序，存在著不同的處理模式，可謂壁壘分明。欠缺犯罪故意的單純債務糾紛，由於涉及的是私人間的權利義務關係，理應依循民事程序解決。但臺灣社會中卻有「以刑逼民」的現象：債務糾紛事件的當事人向警察機關、檢察官提起告訴（例如詐欺），冀望透過刑事程序解決正在發生的糾紛。這種「以刑逼民」的現象被法務部等機關稱為「假性財產犯罪」。然而，民事與刑事規範的區分並非理所當然。支配清治臺灣社會的傳統中國法之中，並無如此分明的「民刑分立」現象。傳統中國法律文化中，以道德視角看待人與人之間的糾紛，審判者的任務在於教化、息訟，民眾向官府請求保護自身利益，則是為了伸冤與控訴對方的道德惡性。另一方面，近代西方法律文化卻將債務糾紛視作個人之間的私權爭執，而應由當事人自行向法院起訴以捍衛自身權利。建立在這兩種不同法文化基礎上的法意識，從臺灣開始繼受近代歐陸法以來，便於社會中衝突，最終形成近現代臺灣可見的假性財產犯罪現象。此外，臺灣公民教育、法治教育中長期輕忽權利意識的培養，也是維持這兩種不同法意識間鴻溝的重要因素。法文化衝突與維持衝突的法治教育，皆為使我們理解假性財產犯罪現象的關鍵。

關鍵字

假性財產犯罪；法文化；法意識；法治教育

並列摘要

In contemporary Taiwanese law, civil cases and criminal cases have different rules and procedures; the two types of cases are strictly divided. Disputes over obligations that involve no intent of fraud are to be resolved with civil law and civil procedures as they are related to the rights and obligations between individuals. However, in modern Taiwan, there is a phenomenon in which persons involved in disputes over obligations file complaints (such as fraud) with police or public prosecutors instead of initiating an action with a civil court, in hopes of resolving a still-unfolding dispute via criminal procedures. These cases are called ＂False Property Crimes＂ by the Ministry of Justice. Nevertheless, the distinction between civil law and criminal law is not a matter of course. In the traditional Chinese law that prevailed in Taiwan society under Qing rule, ＂civil＂ and ＂criminal＂ were not clearly divided. Traditional Chinese legal culture viewed disputes between people from a moral perspective; the judge's duty was to educate the parties involved and to end the litigation. To request the government to protect one's interests was to call attention to a grievance or injustice and to accuse the defendant of unethical behavior. In modern Western legal culture, on the other hand, disputes over obligations are considered as conflicts between the rights of individuals, and a party to the dispute is expected to file an action with the court in order to protect their rights. Once European continental law entered Taiwan through Japanese rule, the legal consciousness that subsequently arose was based on two different legal cultures and conflicted with society. Ultimately, this has led to the phenomenon of ＂False Property Crimes＂ that we observe in Taiwan. Additionally, civic and legal education in Taiwan for a long time neglected to develop a consciousness of rights among the people; this was also an important factor in maintaining the gap between these two types of legal consciousness. These two factors-the conflict between legal cultures and the legal education that sustained it-are the keys to understanding how the phenomenon of ＂False Property Crimes＂ appeared in Taiwanese society and why it still exists.