2017年刑事法實務見解發展回顧

Review the Judicial Practices of Criminal Law in 2017

本文以2017年與刑法相關之法院實務見解為論述對象，整理去年度當中最高法院及高等法院具代表性意義的裁判例及決議，並且分析這些實務見解中所關心的議題取向以及論理變遷之趨勢，最後，從學理的視角從中抽取若干議題，檢討這些裁判例的論述是否妥當，判斷標準是否一致。其中比較令人矚目的發展，例如，實務為因應「後續介入情事」的相當性判斷，而進行相當因果關係理論的調整；在沒收新制下明確區分不同規範目的下的「犯罪所得」概念；偏好採取「複合型法益」的立場以解決規範目的解釋歧異的爭議，因而擴張了成罪範圍；明確指出GPS跟監行為成立無故竊錄罪之理由；持續否定違反食安法之罪（抽象危險犯）存有實質限定解釋的空間等。總體而言，可看到實務上對於新設規範謹慎適用的姿態，但針對社會矚目案件往往未能堅守刑法基本原則，進行擴張性的目的解釋。而針對既有爭議的處理，也存在著未能充分考察既有判決先例脈絡的問題，常有突兀引用學說見解的弊病。 This article selects significant decisions of the Taiwan’s Supreme Court and High Courts in 2017, and reviews whether the arguments of these judgments are appropriate and whether the criteria are consistent or not. There are five topics in this article, including causality of criminal offence with aggravated result, confiscation, bribe, hit-and-run, GPS surveillance and investigation. After reviewing these significant decisions, the author argues that lots of decisions are contrary to the principle of legality, the principle of the protection of legal interests, and the principle of responsibility. For example, Several decisions are inclined to make some accommodative modifications to “the theory of adequate causation” in order to decide “the subsequent involved event” has interrupted the causal relationship between the act and the aggravated result or not. Besides, the Supreme Court is continually refusing substantial restrictive interpretation applying to violations of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation. Most of all, courts are likely to mix several heterogeneous legal interests into one single crime, which is called as “hybrid of legal interests”. Hybrid of legal interests would cause ambiguous, and unexpectable legal interpretations, which cannot be ignored. However, courts properly clarified the meaning of “without reason to peep at or eavesdrop on other’s non-public activities”(Article 315-1 of Criminal Code), which could apply to the case of GPS surveillance and investigation. Overall, the Supreme Court tends to take the wavering attitude about legal interpretation. On one hand, courts has adopted a more restrictive interpretation to the new legislation, such as the meaning of “proceeds of the crime” of confiscation(Criminal Code Article 38-1). However, on the other hand, the more social attention the cases have brought, the less likely it is courts will take the role of defender of primary principles.