對於各種盜用電信服務的行為，現行實務均適用電信法第 56 條第 1 項（「意圖為 自己或第三人不法之利益，以有線、無線或其他電磁方式，盜接或盜用他人電信設備 通信者，處五年以下有期徒刑，得併科新台幣一百五十萬元以下罰金。」）來處罰，但 條文中既有「電磁方式」這樣的盜接、盜用手段限制，那麼，像是直接拿別人的手機 或市內電話來打的這種「非電磁方式」的盜用電信服務行為，應該不在本項預定的處 罰範疇當中，實務對於法律的解釋、適用已經逸脫文義。 雖然電磁是一種能量，但對於通信來說，重視的不是依電磁原理所能夠產生的物 理力量，而是電磁場振動所產生的波動（也就是「電磁波」）本身能夠承載信息的特性。 故以非電磁方式盜用電信服務，所取得的不是物品，也不是能量（不屬於刑法第 323 條的「準動產」），而是免付使用對價的利益，此種利益在現行刑法下無法成為竊盜罪 的客體。那麼，是否應通盤檢討，於刑法典中統一增設「利益竊盜」的規定，以涵蓋 對於盜用電信服務行為之處罰？有部分的利益竊取行為，例如刑法第 339-1 條第 2 項、 339-2 條第 2 項由收費設備或自動付款設備取得財產上利益，目前已經被獨立出來規定 為犯罪。那麼，究竟具有什麼樣特徵的利益竊取行為，值得動用刑罰手段規制？本計 畫即擬進一步思考這樣的問題。 In our country, the courts apply Article 56(1) Telecommunications Act (“Unauthorized access or use of another person's telecommunications facilities to communicate either through wire-based, wireless or other electromagnetic means, for personal gains or benefits of a third party, shall result in imprisonment of not more than five years, with a possible fine of not more than NT$1,500,000.”) to every kind of unauthorized use of telecommunications service, and sometimes deviate from the text of Article 56(1), which states the offense conducted through “electromagnetic means”. For example, using mobile phones of others may be unauthorized use of telecommunications service, but it doesn’t involve “electromagnetic means”, and should not constitute the offense provided for in Article 56(1). The profit gained from unauthorized use of telecommunications service is not a kind of movable property, nor energy (which shall be considered movable property according to Article 323 Criminal Code of ROC.). It is just a kind of illegal benefit, and cannot deserve the Offense of Larceny in Criminal Code. Sometimes the courts treat usurp of illegal benefit as offense of Fraudulence and apply Article 339 Criminal Code to these actions, but it is a misuse of institute. It's better to draw up a new institute specific to usurp of illegal benefit, and this research is aiming at this attempt.
