危險犯構造下規避型侵犯著作權罪實行行為研究

規避型侵犯著作權罪的“嵌入修法”模式確立了該罪法益上的“侵權關聯要求”，這一要求塑造了其法益侵犯樣態的危險犯構造。基於危險犯構造來認定規避型實行行為，需以存在技術措施為前提，進而對行為要素及其危險實質逐步審查判斷:“技術措施”認定宜在著作權法上對其概念進行實質的擴大解釋後適用於刑法中，接觸控制措施需具有“雙重效果”才滿足“侵權關聯要求”;“避開或者破壞”就是使技術措施失效，需區分于規避準備行為及後續侵權行為;“侵犯著作權或鄰接權危險”不宜拘泥于傳統的權能窠臼，需著眼於“著作權或鄰接權”整體法益來判斷。規避型實行行為不能涵攝間接規避的行為，從嚴打擊間接規避的刑事政策需求不可逾越刑法藩籬。司法解釋中的“間接規避條款”具有規範續造意義，實現了對提供型間接規避從共犯到共同正犯的規制模式轉型，但仍需從理論上予以證立。

The“embedded amendment”legislative technique of circumvention-type criminal copyright infringement has produced an“infringement nexus requirement”at the level of the protected legal interest, thereby shaping the offense as an endangerment crime. To establish a circumvention-type constituent conduct, the existence of technological measures is a necessary premise, followed by a stepwise inquiry into the conduct element and its risk substance: the notion of“technological measures”should receive a substantively expansive interpretation in the copyright law and then be applied in criminal law; access- control measures must possess a double effect to satisfy the infringement nexue requirement.“Evading or destroying”means rendering the technological measure ineffective, and must be distinguished from preparatory circumvention and subsequent infringing exploitation. The“danger of infringing copyright or related rights”should not be confined to the traditional bundle-of-rights taxonomy, but assessed with reference to the overall legal interest in copyright and related rights. Acts of indirect circumvention do not fall within the circumvention-type constituent conduct; a policy preference for severe repression of indirect circumvention cannot overstep the limits of criminal law. The“indirect circumvention clause”in the judicial interpretation has a norm-creating/continuity function, shifting the regulatory model for provider- type indirect circumvention from accessory liability to co-principal liability, though this move still requires theoretical justification.