刑法性隱私於我國判決之發展與評析──以保護法益定位與性影像定義等解釋為核心

An Analysis of Judgments of Sexual Privacy Crimes Under Criminal Code in Taiwan Focusing on Legal Interest and Definition of Sexual Image

刑法第319條之1至第319條之3無故攝錄或供人觀覽性影像罪，自2023年增訂施行後，性隱私概念隨著刑事判決積累而愈顯歧見，包含：就是否為隱私權侵害，第319條之1及第319條之3案件形成肯否歧異，卻皆在同時成立個資法第41條時趨於肯定；以及，就何謂「性」隱私，兩罪案件皆論及性名譽，第319條之3更被連結至猥褻物品意涵。然而，考量個資法第41條資訊自決隱私法益，存在個人應如何防免涉己資訊遭國家、商業等組織不當取用的資訊自決權脈絡，以及，考量法條競合下，性隱私經刑法相關規範保護會更為妥適，本文認為性隱私案件不宜適用個資法，並應參考學理，以非公開隱私詮釋刑法第319條之1至第319條之3。同時，「性」隱私如解為性名譽或猥褻物，皆有將性的社會負面觀感延續到個人法益之疑義，而應採用較中性的，與性行為產生合理聯想之解釋，其立論基礎，及性隱私從隱私犯罪獨列的正當性，皆得銜接影像性虐待理論與實證，也得借鏡日本2023年性姿態攝錄等處罰法，以性的自我決定權增訂違反意願攝錄性姿態等刑責的機制，具體化我國構成要件解釋。本文以非公開隱私作為第319條之1至第319條之3保護法益，再解釋性影像定義、行為主體、與第235條關聯、無故要件。

Since the 2023 Criminal Code amendment of Article 319-1—taking of sexual images without consent—and Article 319-3—allowing others to view sexual images without consent—judgments of sexual privacy in Taiwan have been increasingly issued. First, judgments have reached a conflict over whether sexual privacy crimes violate the right to privacy under the Criminal Code, yet have generally been affirmed under Article 41 of the Personal Data Protection Act. Second, judgments have addressed“sexual”privacy to sexual reputation, while Article 319-3 cases have further linked it to the concept of obscene objects. However, Article 41 of the Personal Data Protection Act links to the informational self-determination right that aims at preventing the misuse of personal data by the state, commercial actors, or other entities. Also, under the concurrence of laws, the protection of sexual privacy through relevant criminal law provisions is more appropriate. As such, this paper mentions that sexual privacy crimes could combine with the concept of non-public privacy under Criminal Code via academic theories instead of applying to the Personal Data Protection Act. Furthermore,“Sexual”privacy in terms of sexual reputation or obscene objects risks perpetuating socially negative attitudes toward sexuality in the protection of individual rights, so that it is preferable to define it neutrally as reasonably associated with sexual activity. This exegesis could find support from the theory of image-based sexual abuse and its empirical evidence, and then could reasonably separate general privacy offenses. Moreover, this exegesis could be concrete via the reference to Japan’s 2023 Act on the Punishment for Filming Sexual Poses, which rules criminal liability for filming sexual poses against a person’s will under the right to sexual self-determination. This paper, therefore, proposes conceptualizing the protected legal interest under Articles 319-1 and 319-3 as non-public privacy. This paper also uses the above concept to clarify constituent elements of sexual image, subject of the crime, the relationship with Article 235 of the Criminal Code, and without justification.