刑法第224條強制猥褻罪規定,本即有保護法益抽象流動及法條構成要件如何解釋等等問題存在,再加上修法前後對於本條規定更有諸多問題浮上檯面,使得本條文在解釋與適用上不乏爭議與困難。然而,此問題在性騷擾防治法制訂通過,並於第25條增訂同有帶有刑責之性騷擾罪後,法條解釋與適用之困擾不減反增;除強制猥褻罪與性騷擾罪二條文本身之解釋外,二者如何區分與競合?適用的界線如何劃定?成為學說與實務爭議的最新議題。諸此問題,僅採用法條解釋方法,似乎有其侷限之處,故本文嘗試酌採法律社會學研究方法,期使研究結論貼近社會生活之所需。 本文架構上分為五章:第一章介紹本文的研究動機與目的、研究方法與研究範圍。第二章深入探討目前強制猥褻罪相關之所有問題,包括修法前後保護法益的轉變、構成要件分析與傾向犯之研究等;第三章從「性騷擾」概念著手,討論「性騷擾罪」所應具備之特色,首先由世界各國對性騷擾的法理界定與實證界定歸納出性騷擾之特質,其次試從現代社會公民權利之角度推演出性騷擾之法律本質及國家立法責任,再依此國家立法責任鳥瞰我國目前性騷擾法制概況,藉以帶出性騷擾罪在整體法制中扮演的角色與其性質,以便作為構成要件分析時應斟酌考量之要素。第四章依據上述對該二條文的分析,逐一建立二者區分之標準,並藉由社會研究的方法蒐集實證資料,進一步更精確作為的兩者區分的參考標準與依據;此外,並依此標準檢視實務上三個爭議案例與本文評析。第五章則為結論與修法建議。
The interpretation and application of Compulsory Indecency (§224 Criminal Code) has originally been difficult and controversial because some important problems, such as abstract, indefinite interest and how to understand the components factors, cannot be solved. However, after the pass of Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Sexual Harassment Crime added in Article 25, the interpretation and application of the law is more confusing. In addition to the definitions of the two crimes themselves, more issues, such as how to differentiate and integrate the two crimes and how to draw the dividing line, have been raised theoretically and practically. It seems limited to adopt only explain the components factors to approach the issue. Hence, in this study, the researcher tried to include the methodology of sociology in order to make the discussion close to people’s life in the society. This research is divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction of the motivation, purpose, methodology and the range of this study. Chapter 2 is a discussion of all the problems related to Compulsory Indecency, including the change of interest after the revision of the law, the analysis of components factors and the research of intention. In chapter 3, the researcher tried to sum up the characteristics of Sexual Harassment Crime from the arguments of other countries, and then induce the elements of Sexual Harassment Crime and the legislative responsibility of the country. The discussion can be applied to our country and taken into consideration when the new law is made. In chapter 4, the researcher used the methods of social studies and collected the actual data to develop the standards of distinguishing the two crimes. Besides, three controversial cases were inspected and analyzed according to these standards. Chapter 5 is the conclusion and the advice for amendment of law.