論廢棄物清理法上非法提供土地罪之現行爭議與未來展望

Discussion on the Dispute of Crime of illegally providing land on the Waste Disposal Act, and its future amendments

環境刑法雖於我國近期受到重大關注，惟就最具代表性之環境專法之刑事制裁而言，其雖於我國實務具有重要地位，至今仍缺乏相關學理討論，不僅多數規範之不法內涵有待釐清，關於我國法院是否適當操作系爭規範之問題，亦有值得討論之餘地。因此，本文謹選定我國學界上缺乏討論之廢棄物清理法第46條第3款「非法提供土地罪」為主題，並於爬梳該罪立法歷程與實務解釋後，確證現行最高法院將「無權占有土地之人」列入本罪「行為主體」之處罰範圍，不僅牴觸本罪「提供土地」之文義，且不合於立法者真意，並可能是出於對本罪不法內涵、體系定位之誤解。本文並於參酌本罪立法歷程、立法解釋、文義限制以及體系定位之設計後，認為廢棄物清理法第46條第3款「非法提供土地罪」之不法內涵，乃是建構在「財產權社會性義務」所衍生之土地財產權人之使用限制，並透過「共犯正犯化」之立法模式，強調「土地合法使用權人」於系爭犯罪行為之關鍵地位。考量系爭立法技術之複雜性，本文同時參酌德國刑法第326條「未經許可處理危險廢棄物罪」與德國回收法（KrwG）相關義務設計，察覺本罪應採用更為簡潔之立法模式，並於結論部分為本罪立法設計提出具體建議。 Although the environmental criminal law in Taiwan has been seriously concerned recently, the really important part has still not been discussed. For example, the criminal sanctions in the special law on environmental protection clearly play an important role in the courts, but the Taiwan academia has not yet clarified their illegal content, nor can it determine whether the court's judgment is appropriate. Therefore, this article is based on the subject of the ''Illegal provision of land'' in Article 46, paragraph 3 of the Waste Disposal Act, which is still rarely taken seriously. After reviewing the legislative process and practical interpretation of the crime, this article confirms that it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to include the ''non-owning possessor'' in the scope of punishment. This has violated the meaning of ''providing land'' in this offence and is not the true intention of the legislator. It may be due to the misunderstanding of the illegal content and system orientation of this crime. After considering the legislative process, legislative interpretation, textual restrictions and system positioning design of this crime, this article considers that the illegal content of Article 46, paragraph 3, of the Waste Disposal Act, ''Illegal provision of land'' is constructed in the concept of ''Social obligation of property rights'', which represents the use restrictions of the property rights of the land. In addition, this crime uses the legislative technique of ''Transforming Accomplice into Principal offender'' for the purpose of emphasizing the key position of ''landowners'' in this crime. However, in contrast to the design of Section 326 of the German Criminal Code, ''Unauthorized disposal of hazardous waste'' and the German Recycling Act （KrwG）, it is clear that there are more concise ways to achieve the same legal purpose. Therefore, specific recommendations for legislative amendments to this crime are presented in the conclusion section of this article.