現行刑法污染環境媒介罪之修正芻議

Suggestions for the Amendment to Article 190-1 of the Criminal Code

刑罰規範是最嚴厲的制裁規範，於法治國，務必遵守源自憲法比例原則之「目的正當性原則」、「最後手段性原則」以及「罪刑相當性原則」之要求。如要以刑罰規範污染環境媒介之行為，其目的必須以保護環境媒介本身為主，而其構成要件之設計，亦必須有助於保護環境媒介目的之達成，否則即便立法亦只是一種象徵性刑法而已，毫無意義。現行刑法（本文指2018年5月29日立法院三讀通過，總統公布前之刑法）第190條之1，雖為環境刑法規範，但因採「具體危險犯」之構造，同時對於「污染」之概念援用附屬刑法之嚴格認定標準，致使實務上難以之追訴污染環境媒介之人，僅具象徵性刑法的意義，無法發揮保護環境法益之安全，誠有修正之必要。因德國刑法與我國刑法淵源深厚，比較臺、德刑法污染環境媒介罪之規範差異，從中思考如何重構我國環境刑法規範之內容，借他山之石以攻錯，進而修正我環境刑法規範之內容，強化保護環境之能量，誠有必要。

Criminal punishment as the most severe type must comply with the following principles that are derived from the principle of proportionality: The legitimacy of purpose, the principle of last resort, and the principle of proportionality. When regulating polluting behaviors with criminal punishment, it must be conducted for the purpose of protecting environmental media and its component elements should benefit the fulfillment of such purpose. Otherwise, the legislation will be merely a symbolic bill. The current Article 190-1 of the Criminal Code, despite being as environmental criminal law, only has symbolic value because it adopts the design of “concrete crime of danger” and a strict review standard for “pollution”, which leads to the difficulty in enforcement and the malfunction of its role. Considering the close relations between the German Criminal Law and Taiwanese Criminal Code, it is highly necessary to compare the regulations of both sides and restructure the system of our environmental criminal law accordingly.