網路資訊犯罪歸責模式研究

在互聯網2.0時代，“誰應當為網路資訊犯罪導致的法益侵害負責”成為數位時代向傳統刑法提出的極具現實性與挑戰性的問題。結合網路技術傳播原理對我國《刑法修正案（九）》的刑事責任條款進行教義學注疏，理順其內部邏輯脈絡，有助於厘清我國網路服務提供者刑事責任的妥當邊界。第一，《刑法》第287條之一規定的網路服務提供者是對自己發佈資訊的刑事責任，為上述行為提供幫助者應以第287條之二論處，否則會使得第287條之二虛置並產生繁複的競合問題。第二，第287條之二規定的是因他人發佈資訊而產生的網路服務提供者責任，應拋開共犯框架下中立的說明犯理論而根據一般的歸責原理予以解讀，即歸責依據在於網路服務提供者對所傳輸涉罪資訊的特殊認知；如此主觀不法便會成為歸責的唯一依據與本罪的不法重點，因此應對行為人的主觀方面採取限制解釋，以緩和因客觀方面限制的缺乏而帶來的責任過度擴張。第三，關於網路服務提供者為他人發佈的網路涉罪資訊所承擔的不純正不作為犯刑事責任，應當從傳統刑法危險源監管保證人地位的教義學資源出發，結合網路傳播技術特徵，合理界定保證人地位。

In Web 2. 0, the question who should be responsible for the damage caused by criminal internet information has become the key issue of criminal law in the digital age. To better understand the culpability of Internet service providers, this essay tries to interpret the clauses of criminal liability in Amendment (IX) to the Criminal Law of the PRC and clarify the internal logic according to the principles of network technology communication. First of all, internet service providers who send messages for themselves shall be convicted and punished according to Article 287 A. Meanwhile, whoever provides any assistance for the mentioned crime shall be convicted and punished according to Article 287 B, which could take full advantage of Article 287 Band diminish the chaotic situations of concurrence. Furthermore, Article 287 Bshall be based on general liability principles rather than neutral-assistance theory as the providers are convicted because of others’ behaviors, which means the mens rea--provider’s special knowledge of the transmission of criminal information--has become the only and essential foundation of culpability. Thus, in order to decrease the over-expansion of criminal liability, we shall interpret the subjective aspect of the perpetrator restrictively. Ultimately, to identify the guarantor status and omission culpability of internet service providers rationally, the dogmatic resources of guarantor status of danger supervision, combined with the characteristics of internet technology communication, shall become the starting point.