刑法第11條及其施行法第10條之3第2項之衝突與調和──以內線交易罪犯罪所得之計算為例

Conflict and Coordination in Article 11 of Criminal Code and Second Paragraph of Article 10-3 of Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code – Taking Calculation of Criminal Insider-Trading

當西元2016年7月1日刑法關於犯罪所得沒收等規定施行後，刑法典以外關於犯罪與刑罰規定，究係依刑法施行法第10條之3第2項規定，一律向刑法典校正，抑或應依刑法第11條但書，仍得排除刑法總則之規定，此等爭議，應如何立於解釋論之立場加以調整，有賴深究此二條文之目的及其意涵。因學理上在探求各該條文之規範目的時，均不約而同地提及普通刑法、特別刑法、核心刑法、附屬刑法及行政刑法等刑法類型，與「特別法優於普通法原則」及「後法優於前法原則」等法律適用原則，對之，本文均將詳為闡述及提出個人觀點，並另於文末以內線交易罪計算犯罪所得之爭議為例，藉由簡評最高法院106年度台上字第1009號刑事判決之見解，敘明個人己見之操作方法。總之，依本文之見，僅普通刑法、特別刑法、核心刑法、附屬刑法有承認之必要，且立於刑法第11條但書及其施行法第10條之3第2項之規範目的時，應分別各限縮於特別刑法或附屬刑法始得適用。在此前提下，相對於刑法典而言，證券交易法中內線交易罪之性質，為附屬刑法，故依刑法第11條及其施行法第10條之3第2項規定，其犯罪所得之計算，應回歸刑法沒收制度。至於該則最高法院判決見解，除理由稍嫌不足外，其餘觀點應予肯認。 The provisions on criminal proceeds confiscation in the Criminal Code of the Republic of China came into force on July 1,2016. On crimes and criminal punishments regulated by other laws or regulations,its Article 11 instructs that provisions in these laws and regulations apply should they have Criminal Code should apply. Therefore,there have been many debates over which of the two should be followed. In order to answer this question,the legislative purposes and meanings of these two Articles should be discussed in-depth according to the interpretation theory. In most academic studies on the legislative purposes of Article 11 and Article 10-3,types of criminal laws,including general criminal law, sonderstrafrecht,kernstrafrecht,nebenstrafrecht,and verwaltungsstrafrecht, as well as principles,such as“lex specialis derogat legi generali”and“lex posterior derogat legi priori”are frequently touched upon. A comprehensive discourse and view for each of these concepts were provided in this study. In addition,Taiwan Supreme Court,case No .Taishentzu 1009,2017,which involved the calculation of proceeds from insider trading,was analyzed and used as an example to explain,according to the researcher,how these two Articles should apply. The conclusion of this study is that there are valid reasons for looking into general criminal law,sonderstrafrecht,kernstrafrecht,and nebenstrafrecht in this discussion,but not for the others. Moreover,from the perspective of the legislative purposes,Article 11 of the Criminal Code and Article 10-3 of the Enforcement Law should only apply to sonderstrafrecht and nebenstrafrecht respectively. As provisions on the crime of insider trading in the Securities and Exchange Act are nebenstrafrecht compared to the Criminal Code,it is Article 10-3 that applies. In other words,the criminal proceeds should be confiscated pursuant to the Criminal Code. Consequently,despite lacking sufficient reasoning,the interpretations in criminal judgment Taiwan Supreme Court,case No .Taishentzu 1009,2017,should be recognized.