刑法上電腦犯罪立法之研究

A Study of Legislation on Computer Crimes under Criminal Law

劉景嘉(CHING-CHIA LIU)

指導教授 ： 李茂生

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2014年)

摘要

本文之研究目的主要在於精確的定義出刑法上的電腦犯罪及將電腦犯罪行為予以類型化，並且找出刑法上電腦犯罪相關條文，即我國刑法第三十六章，所保護之法益。而鑒於自民國九十二年新增刑法第三十六章妨害電腦使用章後，至今每年法院所做出之相關判決的數量遠不及其他犯罪，此乃恐肇因於對於刑法第三十六章的解釋適用仍有一定的爭議以及問題，因此本文嘗試從比較法之角度，通章討論我國刑法對於電腦犯罪行為之規制內容。
就研究方法而言，鑒於我國刑法電腦犯罪相關規定並非獨創，而是有一定之背景及參考外國立法而成，故本文以普通法系國家為鎖定對象，從國際上網路犯罪公約開始，比較我國與美國、英國、加拿大、澳洲對於電腦犯罪之立法規制方向，並參考各國立法精神，以我國大陸法系刑法解釋學為主參考國內文獻，針對電腦犯罪意義、種類、法益保護以及構成要件等提出本文之意見。
而在縱觀各國針對電腦犯罪之立法例後，可以發現有兩個重點。第一，各國之立法傾向於規制無權接近使用他人電磁紀錄或電腦系統，因此可以說各國傾向於把電腦犯罪之規制行為鎖定在「電腦濫用行為」，排除任何藉由電腦違犯的傳統犯罪。因此，本文以為電腦犯罪之概念即為「電腦濫用行為」，其意指行為人濫用電腦違法操作侵害他人專門使用權限，或進而破壞電腦系統或者電腦系統上的電磁紀錄行為。再者，各國立法例針對網路犯罪公約裡所提之四種電腦犯罪行為類型均有相對應規制之法條，而該各類型分別是「入侵類型」、「破壞類型」、「濫用裝置類型」、「非法截取類型」。基此，在本文主張以「時間型」模式來劃分電腦犯罪行為之種類並參考上開類型後，本文主張將電腦犯罪行為分為「濫用裝置行為」、「入侵行為」及「濫用電腦資料及破壞行為」。
最後，社會成員所有活動幾乎離不開資訊，各種東西盡可能的是以數位或符號表示，由電腦、網路來搜集、儲存、操作與應用，而不論遠近，也皆可利用電腦網路參與各類社會活動或進行各種商業交易。甚者，電腦網路資訊處理系統成為政府管理施政、社會活動進行與日常生活上不可或缺的工具，所以一旦電腦網路系統遭破壞，社會成員將頓失依據而陷於混亂，嚴重者甚而恐導致整個社會瓦解、崩潰，因此維護「電腦(網路)上的空間秩序」之完整性與不可侵犯性，應屬一種新興社會成員共同生活上之利益，是刑法所應保護的新法益。故而在解釋適用刑法第三十六章時，必須考量其所保護之法益性質，如此才不會失去解釋之方向而造成適用上之矛盾以及困難。

關鍵字

電腦犯罪 ； 電腦濫用犯罪 ； 法益保護 ； 網路犯罪

並列摘要

The propose of this thesis was to identify the meaning of computer crime, and discover the legal interest which computer crime law protects. Since the idea of a separate category of computer crime arose in Taiwan (Republic of China), the evolution of such legislation followed successive waves, reflecting establishing the Chapter 36 of Criminal Code of Republic of China (hereinafter criminal code) -“Offenses Against the Computer Security”.
However, due to the prohibition against the computer crimes is new, the interpretation of computer crime law remains many problems in Taiwan. Therefore, at the first, the author tried to analyze the scope of computer crimes under criminal law by comparing the differences of jurisdiction between Taiwan and other common law countries, and those countries were the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Second, the author tried to interpret the articles in Chapter 36 of Criminal Code by the result of observing different jurisdiction and analyzing the materials in Taiwan.
The results are as follows. First, the concerns of each jurisdiction was to protect against unauthorized access to computer data or computer system, so the prohibition against the offenses were those computer misuse crimes, excluding the traditional criminal offenses facilitated by computers. Therefore, “computer misuse crime” should be equivalent to “computer crime”, and the author defined computer crime as the conduct that intentionally causes interference with the proper functioning of computers and computer networks, so that upsets user’s reliance on the rights and privileges provided by computer owners and operators. Furthermore, there could be divided into four categories of offenses under computer crime law in each jurisdiction , and those categories were Access Offenses, Impairment of Data, Interception of Data, and Misuse Devices. Consequently, as the author tried to distinguish the offenses against computer crime law by timeline, those offenses could be divided into Misuse Devices, Access Offenses, and Misuse and Impairment of Data.
Second, as the concerns of each jurisdiction was to protect computer data or computer system under computer crime law, it was an inspiration for discovering the legal interest which is protected by the Chapter 36 of Criminal Code. Briefly, in the modern society, as the computer technology has improved and proliferated in our society, businesses, and personal daily lives, more and more people use computers and rely on them as part of their life, so the collapse of computer system or cyberspace on the internet might result in the collapse of society. Therefore, the reason why the concerns of each jurisdiction was to protect the computer data or computer system was because of maintaining order in cyberspace, and it was the exactly legal interest protected under Chapter 36 of Criminal Code.
The author recommends that when interpreting the articles in the Chapter 36 of Criminal Code, it should be aware of the legal interest, which is protected in this chapter. Therefore, since the requirement of certain articles in this chapter provided as “…causing damages to the public or others…”, it should be interpreted as the defendant must truly damage the order in cyberspace so could he meet the requirement of those offenses against computer crimes.

並列關鍵字

computer crimes ； computer misuse crimes ； legal interest ； cybercrimes

參考文獻

30. 蔡蕙芳，妨害電腦使用罪章-保護法益與規範功能，月旦法學教室，第126期，2013年04月

25. 黃榮堅，電腦犯罪的刑法問題，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，1996年07月

29. 蔡蕙芳，電磁紀錄無權取得行為之刑法規範，中正法學集刊，第13期，2003年10月

10. 李茂生，論義務者遺棄罪的罪質與危險犯的概念(下)-兼評最高法院99年度台上字第3048號判決，法令月刊，63卷第3期，2012年03月

2. 王銘勇，侵入電腦系統罪之研究，第55卷3期，法令月刊，2004年3月