少年司法安置機構懲戒行為刑事違法性之探討

A Study of Affirmative Defenses for Disciplinary Action in Juvenile Justice Placement Agencies

少年法院（庭）依少年事件處理法第42 條第1 項所為四種保護處分中，除「交付安置輔導」處分係由少年法院擇定外部適當機構執行外，餘均由法院或法務部所屬矯正學校執行。法院所交付之安置機構，多為私人福利教養機構，目前實務上法院均係以與機構簽訂安置協議書之模式為之。然而，安置機構受法院委託執行輔導處分，於少年之人身自由必有所限制約束，其限制之權源及範圍如何？假設少年不服從機構輔導時，機構能否以強制力限制其人身自由？若機構此時施加強制作為，而侵害少年之身體、自由等法益，能否阻卻違法？又安置機構於輔導少年期間，對於少年之起居作息、生活方式、財物保管、出入機構等事項，均有加以約束管制之必要。對於少年違反機構規範事項，機構人員所採取之懲戒行為，如有侵害少年之身體、自由、財產法益時，是否有可阻卻違法之事由存在？本文基於上述思考而延伸探討下列議題：（一）少年司法安置機構人員能否代行父母懲戒權而阻卻違法？（二）安置機構人員能否視為公務員根據法令之職務行為而阻卻違法？（三）安置機構之懲戒方法是否可視為執行業務之正當行為而阻卻違法？（四）安置機構如以生活公約限制少年之身體、財產、自由等權益，得否視為阻卻違法之承諾？

Among the four types of protective measures imposed by the juvenile court under Article 42, Paragraph 1 of the Juvenile Justice Act, only the “placement counseling” is imposed by the juvenile court by selecting appropriate external agencies. Most of the court-designated placement agencies are private welfare and correctional institutions with which practically sign an agreement. However, if the placement agency is entrusted by the court to conduct counseling, there must be restrictions on the personal freedom of the juvenile. If the juvenile does not take the compliance with the counseling, can the agency use coercive force to impose the restriction of personal freedom? If the institution imposes a coercive action at this time, can the infringement be prevented juvenile from crime? In addition, during the period of counseling, it is necessary for the institution to restrict and control the juvenile's living and working, lifestyle, property storage, and access to the institution. If a juvenile violates the rules, does the disciplinary action taken by the institution's staff prevent the violation of the law? Based on the above considerations, this article explores the following issues: (1) Can the staff of the juvenile justice placement agency be a substitute for parental disciplinary authority to prevent the violation of the law? (2) Can placement agencies be considered as civil servants who enforce in accordance with the law to prevent the violation of the law? (3) Can a placement agency's disciplinary methods be considered proper conduct to deter violations of the law? (4) Can a placement agency's restriction of a juvenile's rights be considered as a commitment to deter violations of the law?