重利罪保護法益與正當性

Legally Protected Interest and Legitimacy of Usury(Article 344 of the Criminal Code)

陳盈如(Ying-Ju Chen)

指導教授 ： 黃榮堅

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.00340

摘要

刑法第三百四十四條重利罪，在司法實務上高度適用，但相關的討論卻鮮少見到。本條文保護法益究竟為何，學說上雖然曾經提出一些說法，但說法紛亂而未見深入說理，導致條文的構成要件也無法扣緊其保護法益來制定或解釋。雖然依照目前體例，重利罪被編排於整體財產犯罪罪章，但其性質與其他財產犯罪仍有若干不合之處，故本論文欲從探究保護法益出發，質疑重利罪之立法正當性。

從我國金融制度變遷的歷史可以發現，民間放貸在過去我國金融體制尚未成熟之前扮演相當重要的資金提供角色，而利息高低也相當程度取決於市場供需，重利行為可以說是政府金融政策的風向儀，在金融制度不完善或出現漏洞時，民間借貸行為便會應運而生，而利息也會跟著資金取得的困難度而水漲船高。

重利罪之保護法益在我國與比較法上主要都被定義為財產犯罪。然而若以得被害人承諾理論加以檢驗會發現我國現行條文規定被害人之「急迫」、「輕率」情狀不能阻卻其承諾之真摯性，故似不得認為重利罪保護法益為財產。接續探討其他保護法益可能性之後，依然無法解釋重利罪的規範意義。結論是，以本文所持個人法益學說之法益觀，無法找到重利罪的立法正當性。

若爬梳德國重利罪立法背景之脈絡，可以發現重利罪之立法和對於自由主義的反省息息相關，重利罪的立法滲入了對於社會福利的想像；甚至我國現代社會對於重利行為的聲討和嚴刑化已經脫離對保護法益的關切或集體良知的反饋，而成為政治力作用的結果。本文認為，重利行為僅為資金提供方式的一種，不論從法益論點，或是效益主義式的利益衡量皆找不到重利罪存在的正當性，反而是一種法益概念的雜化，壓縮了資金需求者最後一條可能的出路，同時掩蓋了真正的問題所在。因此本文主張重利行為應該除罪化。
最後，為回應現實立法上的趨勢，即使重利行為在短期內無法朝除罪的方向前進，本文也建議參考德國重利罪之構成要件，重新建構我國重利罪，以符合其作為財產法益犯罪的定位。

關鍵字

重利 ； 法益 ； 被害人承諾理論 ； 金融雙元性 ； 違法討債 ； 自由主義 ； 效益主義

並列摘要

Criminal law 344th - Crime of Usury is a law that is widely applicable and has been frequently used in judicial practice. However, the reasoning behind the designs and the explanations of this law — i.e. its legal interests — are highly questionable. This thesis, based on the legal interest theory, questions the justification of the usury law.

In the financial history of Taiwan, usury could be seen as a negative indicator of the robustness of the financial system; the usury behavior increased when there were flaws or imperfections in the financial system at that time and played an important role in providing short term funds to the financial support demanders. In the current legal system, usury has been categorized as one kind of property crimes. However, by examining the current usury law with the victim commitment theory, the author found there is no justification for the “urgency” and “recklessness” scenarios, which are stated in the current usury law, to deny the genuineness of the victim’s commitment. After examining other possible legally protected interest and still failing to find any justification, the author concluded the current usury law is unjustifiable from the perspective of the personal legally protected interest theory.

From the historical background of the usury law in Germany, we could find a close connection between the usury law and the reflection of the Liberalism; there is a clear sign that the society’s expectation to social welfare has had a significant impact on the legislation of the usury law. Similarly, due to the society’s disparagement and the harsh punishment against usury, the legislation of the usury law in Taiwan has become neither the concern about the legally protected interest nor the feedback of the social conscience, but the result of the political considerations instead. This thesis argues that, as usury is merely one way to provide financial funds, the law that forbids such behavior not only conceals the real problems of the financial system, but also impedes the liquidity demanders from obtaining necessary funds. Such a law cannot be justified by either the legal interest theory or the utilitarian benefit measurements. Thus, the author concludes usury should be decriminalized.

Finally, even if usury cannot be immediately decriminalized due to the current legislation trends, the author still like to suggest law makers to reconstruct the current usury crime based on the constitution elements of the usury crime in Germany to justify its position as a property crime.

並列關鍵字

usury ； legally protected interest ； victim commitment theory ； financial dualism ； illegal debt collection ； liberalism ； utilitarianism

參考文獻

徐世榮、蕭新煌，〈戰後初期臺灣業佃關係之探討—兼論耕者有其田政策〉，《臺灣史研究》，10卷2期，2003年12月，頁35-66。

周漾沂，《被害人自陷風險對於行為人不法之作用》，2005年，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

劉鐘仁，《現金卡政策、中高齡失業與地下金融》，國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文，2007年。

吳鴻昌，《現代性的經濟想像：市場觀念在西方論述中的歷史與知識轉折》，國立台灣大學社會科學院社會學研究所博士論文，2012年8月。

吳志強，《經濟刑法之背信罪與特別背信罪的再建構》，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年7月。