重新檢視禁止證券不履行交割之立法目的及其主觀要件——兼評臺灣高等法院一○三年度金上訴字第十四號刑事判決

Revisit Legislative Purpose and Premise to Forbid the Failure to Deliver in the Securities Trading and Mens Rea of the Offense: Review of Criminal Judicial Decision No.14, 2014 of Taiwan Superior Court

證券交易法第一五五條第一項第一款規定：「在集中交易市場委託買賣或申報買賣，業經成交而不履行交割，足以影響市場秩序」。違反該款規定者，除依同條第三項負有民事損害賠償責任外，尚須依同法第一七一條負有刑事責任（下稱「不履行交割罪」），且其法定刑為三年以上十年以下。學說及司法實務見解多認為該款性質上為「民事債務不履行」，而不是操縱市場的行為態樣。因此，課予刑事責任缺乏正當性。此外，為數不少的司法判決以被告不具不履行交割之故意，而為無罪判決。有認為被告不具有不履行交割之惡意，因此不具有故意。亦有從被告於下單委託買賣時是否具有籌資計畫，而認定被告是否具有故意。此外，亦有判決指出行為人必須具有「為操縱市場或證券價格或危害市場交易秩序之意圖」方能成立不履行交割罪。本文以量化分析，研究投資人買、賣證券之委託對於證券成交價格的影響。由分析可知，每一筆委託買、賣證券之委託於成交後，均可能對證券成交價格產生影響，因此，不允許投資人於委託成交後，以不履行交割推翻先前的委託，此為處罰證券不履行交割的理由。此外，司法判決對於不履行交割故意之認定，不符合刑法規定及刑法學理，恐流於法官恣意，應予檢討。 According to Article 155, section (a), subsection 1 of Securities Exchange Act: An investor is forbidden to defraud on the securities trading as it acts as one way of manipulating the stock market. An investor is liable for civil compensation and may also face criminal charges up to ten years in prison when breaching a securities trading contract. Most researches and judicial decisions consider the aforementioned Article has no justification to punish such an act. This article applies empirical evidences to verify the justification to punish a breach of securities trading contract. It also shows that any order matched by trading system can affect the trading price, therefore it is punishable if an investor nullifies the order by breaching the trading contract. Moreover, it is revealed that the judicial reasons to acquit defendants in breaching securities trading contract cases are inconsistent with the standards of Mens Rea which are advocated by criminal law and theories. These judicial decisions are arbitrary and inappropriate.