從歷史發展與犯罪結構論不法意圖在背信罪中的消長──兼評特殊背信罪肥大化的立法趨勢

On the Illegal Intent in Criminal Breach of Trust from the Perspectives of Historical Development and Criminal Structure: A Note Concerning Trending Legislative Hypertrophy Towards Special Breach of Trust Crimes

背信罪中的不法意圖到底能夠發揮什麼樣的作用，一直以來都是一個有待澄清的問題。近期來講，儘管若干我國文獻對於在背信罪中設計不法意圖的作法採取肯定的立場，並且進一步地將上述觀點推及特殊背信罪的領域；但是如果進一步去追溯背信罪的發展歷史，我們不難發現：不管是不法意圖的設定或者特殊背信罪的立法方式，其實早在一百多年前的德國法中就曾經出現過，但卻因為種種的難以克服的問題，早已為德國立法者所放棄。令人感到疑慮的是，如今我國雨後春筍般出現的特殊背信罪，除了若干本土的問題之外，與一百多年前德國文獻上的爭議都具有高度的近似性。面對這個亟待改正的現狀，在對於我國刑法典中背信罪做出一定程度的修正之前，德國帝國刑法典時代對於不法意圖的解釋標準，以及日本當代學說對於不法意圖採取寬鬆的理解方式，或可作為我國實務家在操作背信罪時的參考。

The specific role of illegal intent in breach of trust crimes has long been a challenging question. The new thinking in the literature from Taiwan takes a positive view on the inclusion of illegal intent into criminal fraud statutes, and further extended the above views to the territory of special breach of trust crimes. However, if we retrace the historical development of fraud and outline the criminal structure of breach of trust crimes, it would become doubtful whether illegal intent has any specific function. Once we return to the historical context of breach of trust crimes, we would find that legislative approaches toward special breach of trust crimes have already taken place in German law more than a century ago. Such legislation runs the risk of narrowing the statutory scope, and may even create conflicts structurally between breach of trust and special breach of trust crimes, among other unresolvable problems. German legislators have long abandoned attempts to define special breach of trust crimes in statutory terms and returned to the criminal code’s general breach of trust crime statutes for prosecution. The problem is that Taiwan is moving on a similar trajectory as Germany’s failed attempt a century ago. The special breach of trust prosecutions springing up in our courts are generally speaking duplicating the controversies that appeared in century-old German juridical literature and displaying the same limitations on the criminal structure of special breach of trust crimes in German law at the time. The current state of affairs needs urgent redress. Before committing to the modification of breach of trust statutes in our criminal code, it is perhaps necessary to consult interpretations of illegal intent in modern Japanese jurisprudence (which takes a less rigid view) and compare with the standard definitions of illegal intent under the penal code of the German empire, to draw up a more informed approach in operating breach of trust statutes for pragmatists in our country.