由實務見解探討刑法第三百五條之一妨害秘密罪

A Study on Offenses Against Privacy of Article 315-1 of Criminal Code Basic on Decisions of the Courts

依實務見解，刑法第315條之1第2款「非公開」要件是被害人主觀上具有隱私期待，且在客觀上已利用相當環境或採取適當設備，足資確保其活動之隱密性。本文認為除此以外，也應包括從客觀上可得知或可推知具有隱私期待的情形。實務認為個人身處公共場域中，仍享有私領域之合理隱私期待，在他人車上使用GPS定位追蹤器成立本條款。然依GPS定位追蹤器功能，具有即時定位與軌跡回放，當行為人即時定位觀看，侵害的是他人活動；當行為人使用軌跡回收功能時，侵害的是他人資訊隱私，因此對使用GPS定位追蹤器之評價，重點在於利用其何種功能。另外，實務認為行為人竊錄與他人對話內容，竊錄行為對他方而言，其秘密通訊自由並無受侵害可言。此見解有可議之處，因本條款保障每個人能無拘束地與他人談話與秘密的信賴。談話者對自己非公開的談話內容享有資訊自主，不容許任何人予以公開、保存或改變。又實務解釋「他人」要件，不能因客體是活動、言談或身體隱私部位而有區別，遂認為參與言談者，因不是「他人」，可以未經談話者同意而竊錄；但從事與身體隱私有關的「活動」，共同參與者的竊錄行為該當本罪，造成法律適用上的不確定性。至於本條款「無故」性質，因為法條對行為使用「竊」錄，因此是阻卻違法事由。 According to the courts, the term“non-public”mentioned in Article 351-1 of Criminal Code means that the victim has expectations on privacy subjectively, and can take advantage of environment or use appropriate instruments to ensure the privacy of his activities. In addition to this, this paper considers that the situations that are objectively known or can be inferred to have privacy expectations should be included. In cases involving using GPS trackers, the courts believe that people can still expect their privacy is ensured even though they are situated in public areas, therefore using GPS trackers on people's car will be a violation of Article 351-1. Considering the multi-functions of GPS trackers, this paper tends to point out that the issue is which function was used. If the actor only uses the real time positioning services, he is infringing the privacy of others'activities. If the actor uses the trace recording services, he is infringing the privacy of others'personal information. Besides, the courts believe that the behavior of eavesdropping the content of conversation with others does not violate other people's privacy of correspondence. This opinion is questionable. The purpose of Article 315-1 is to guarantee people's freedom of privacy of correspondence. Therefore, people have the right not allow anyone else to disclose, save or change his non-public conversations. Also, according to the courts, the explanation of the term“other people”does not differ if the object is an activity, speech or physical privacy. Therefore, a participant of a conversation is not considered as an“other person”so the behavior of eavesdropping the content of the conversation is allowed while sneaking recording activities involving physical privacy is considered as a violation of this article, which causes uncertainty in the application of the law. Furthermore, due to the wording of eavesdrop and peep, the term“without reason”of this article should be considered as an element of affirmative defense.