論刑法第三百五十八條入侵電腦罪

A Study on the Crime of Computer Intrusion of the Criminal Code Article 358

系所名稱：法律學院法律學系
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：103年
指導教授：黃榮堅
「駭客」一詞在今日通常被泛稱為竊取資料或破壞電腦系統的犯罪者。事實上最早的駭客是指一個追求電腦技術的精進並無私分享各種網路資源的社群，然而因為尋求網路空間解放的目標與政府或企業建立權威的需求產生衝突，結局是網路空間逐漸受到控制，駭客族群被打壓，電腦犯罪的制定以及重刑化潮流的背後，正是這種現象所造成的結果。我國刑法第358條處罰的是入侵電腦行為，與世界各國對於入侵電腦行為的規範相比較，除了有「無故」、「輸入他人帳號密碼」、「破解使用電腦之保護措施」與「利用電腦系統之漏洞」幾種要件之外，在主觀或客觀要件都略顯不足，使犯罪成立之認定不易，更有可能處罰到未造成損害的輕微行為。關於入侵電腦罪之保護法益，基於以下理由：偏高的法定刑、網路空間強調溝通互動的特性、資訊社會高度仰賴電腦網路系統等等，本文認為保護法益應當是對於控制電腦使用權限機制正常運作的社會信賴，屬於社會法益，當入侵行為的強度足以動搖這種信賴，才有處罰正當性。從犯罪性質來看，入侵電腦罪是一種抽象危險犯，僅以入侵行為作為要件，而不要求發生損害結果，為了限縮這種前置化的刑罰規範，建議配合刑法第359條與第360條規定，將第358條解釋成其預備犯或未遂犯規定，行為人需具備後續犯罪的主觀故意與該行為能致生損害於公眾或他人，藉此使偏高的法定刑與前置化處罰較為可接受。最後，入侵電腦行為真正適合以抽象危險犯規制的情形，應當是存在於被入侵的電腦是特別值得被保護的電腦，此類電腦中儲存大量不特定多數人的重要資訊，或是必須仰賴這類電腦系統才能完成與大眾利益相關的工作，因此本文提出的立法建議是，將行為客體限縮在公務機關與金融機構專用電腦。

The term “hacker” is usually called the criminals to steal information or damage the computer systems nowadays. At the beginning, the hackers just promoted the computer technology and shared the network resource. The hackers were suppressed when the governments and the corporates controlled cyberspace. The above-mentioned phenomena brought about the legislation of computer crimes. The crime of computer intrusion is punished under the article 358 of the criminal code. Compared with the legislation of other countries, the subjective and objective elements of the article 358 of the criminal code are not enough to identify the constitution of crime.Based on the importance of computer systems in information society, the author holds that the legal interest of the crime of computer intrusion is to protect the trust in the functional mechanism of the permission to use the computer systems. This crime belongs to an offense of abstract danger because the prerequisite is only the criminal behavior of intrusion. This study suggests that interpreting the article 358 of the criminal code as the preparatory offense or the attempt of the article 359 and 360.According to this argument, the offender constitutes the crime when having the intent to not only commit article 358 but also article 358 or 359. In addition, the legitimacy about the legislation in the form of the offense of abstract danger only exists in the situation that the computer system is especially required to protect. Finally, the author suggests that increasing the prerequisite “the computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the government” for the article 358 of the criminal code.