「勾結球員」打假球的刑法評價──以我國運動彩券發行條例第21條與德國刑法第265c條、第265d條為核心

Collusion with Players in Criminal Law - Article 21 of Sports Lottery Issuance Act and Articles 265c and 265d of the German Penal Code

為確保我國運動彩券營運之順遂，我國立法者於2009年制定運動彩券發行條例第21條「操縱體育競技罪」，並是我國現行法中少見透過刑事制裁保障體育活動公平性與體育政策之體育犯罪。惟面對我國運動彩券實務上具代表性的「勾結球員」打假球之行為，我國早期見解雖多認為其得該當該罪第1項「詐術」或「其他不法方式」，惟與此同時，近期學說見解則有提出否定見解，並認為勾結行為既非「詐術」，也不是本罪之「其他不法方式」，而無法適用本罪，並將導致現行法出現規範漏洞。由於本罪缺乏實務判決評釋，前述爭論直至今日仍懸而未解，直至今日仍未形成共識，進而對我國體育刑法之發展產生消極影響。
為釐清前述爭議，本文重新檢視兩說見解之解釋方法與論理依據，且同時參考德國法制就類似行為之法規設計與評價。並就結論而言，本文認為前述否定說見解基於其歷史解釋或體系解釋所得之規範漏洞結論，應有論理上得再斟酌之處。然就肯定說見解而言，其亦有逾越「詐術」文義與體系解釋極限之風險。因此，本文最後建議，「勾結球員」於我國宜參酌德國法制就「詐欺」與「操縱」之區隔方式，根據行為人主觀意圖與手段侵擾之利益分別評價為「詐術」或「其他不法方式」。

In order to ensure the successful operation of sports lotteries, the legislators of Taiwan enacted Article 21 of the Sports Lottery Issuance Act in 2009, which is the crime of manipulation of sports competition, and it is one of the few sports crimes in the current laws of Taiwan that protects the fairness of sports activities and sports policies through criminal sanctions. However, when it comes to the representative case of“colluding with players”to commit match-fixing in the practice of sports lotteries in Taiwan, although most of the early views in Taiwan were that it should be regarded as“swindling”or“other illegal activities”in paragraph 1 of the article, at the same time, some recent opinions have raised a different view, and considered that the act of colluding is not a swindling act, nor is it one of the“other illegal activities”in the article, so it cannot be applied to the article, which will lead to the loophole of regulation under the existing law. Due to the lack of practical judgements on this article, the aforementioned controversy is still unresolved and no consensus has yet been reached, which in turn has a negative impact on the development of sports criminal law in Taiwan.
In order to clarify the controversy, this article re-examines the interpretative methods and theoretical basis of the two opinions, and at the same time, refers to the design and evaluation of the German legal system on the statute of similar acts. In terms of conclusion, it is argued that the normative loopholes of the opposing views based on their historical or systemic interpretations should be subject to further theoretical scrutiny. However, as for the affirmative view, it also runs the risk of overstepping the limits of the meaning of“swindling”and systematic interpretation. Therefore, this article concludes by suggesting that“collusion with players”in Taiwan should be evaluated as“swindling”or“other illegal activities”according to the subjective intention of the perpetrator and the means used to intrude on the interests of the perpetrator, just as the German legal system distinguishes between“Betrug”and“Manipulation”.