偽造文書罪以危險犯統一規制之可行性－以臺灣高等法院103年度金上更(二)字第5號判決為中心

CCUR > College of Law > Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law > thesis > Item 987654321/39782

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/39782

Title:	偽造文書罪以危險犯統一規制之可行性－以臺灣高等法院103年度金上更(二)字第5號判決為中心 A Study on the Forged Document to Estimate the Feasibility of Dangerous Offense As an Integrated Criterion - Focusing on the Taiwan High Court Judgment.
Authors:	劉中哲
Contributors:	法律學系碩士在職專班
Keywords:	偽造文書具體危險犯抽象危險犯文書準文書規範競合證券交易法財務報告財報不實虛偽記載 Forging Instruments Specific Dangerous Criminal Abstract Dangerous Criminal Instrument Quasi-instruments Concurrence of Regulations Securitise and Exchange Act Financial Report Financial Report Liability False Record
Date:	2018
Issue Date:	2018-05-04 10:47:02 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	構成要件明確性可以說是罪刑法定主義的基本條件。因為，如果構成要件的意思不清楚，那麼根本沒有辦法判斷，一個人的行為到底是不是屬於構成要件所要網羅的範圍。既然行為人對於自己的行為根本無法清楚的認識或抗辯，倘若仍予論罪科刑，除有牴觸罪責原則疑慮外，刑罰效果亦屬有限。在偽造文書罪的要件設計中，因爲文書客體的範疇過廣，是否將流入交易過程充當媒介物、是否關乎權利義務變動、是否可能引發財產實害...等，皆未能足以形成經驗法則上的危險共感，也就是立法者再怎麼詳盡完整地描述犯罪構成要件，也不能確定危險的存在。除了在判斷上混淆保護客體與行為客體外，具體危險認定上的過於浮動導致構成要件喪失過濾功能，並有失其明確性。且由於不法構成要件的空洞化，讓行為人無從預測其行為將在法律上發生何種效果，進而無法強化行為規範功能以達危險犯所預設的預防實害初衷。在證劵交易法關於財報不實之規範上，分別就行為人主觀上是否具有詐欺之故意及不法所有之意圖，視其侵害之法益狀態而適用不同之競合關係予以論罪科刑。相對於偽造文書罪在適用上所衍生之問題而言，不論在文書公信之社會法益保護、文書範疇之明確性、行為人所應負擔之責任，規範了相對應之刑事處罰、民事賠償以及行政裁罰，對於意圖不法之行為人更有震懾力。此種經濟刑法規範不只符合刑法之謙抑思想及最後性手段，亦更為符合罪刑法定主義之精神。簡言之，如果運用各單行法規之特別規範得以更有效的保護我們所在意的法益，那麼廢除偽造文書罪回歸特別法規範，就是合理的選項。 The foundation of no penalty without a law (Nulla poena sine lege) shall be the clarity of constitutional elements. Because of there is absolutely no way to judge whether or not a person's behavior belongs to the scope of the constituent elements, if the meaning of the constituent elements is not clear. The penalty effect is limited except for the principle of guilty conscience, if the actor cannot clearly understand or defend himself subject to criminal punishment. Because of the scope to the documents is too wide in the design of the elements of the crime of forging instruments. There are no way how to figure out the common sense of danger on the law for the legislator detailed elements of the crime. In addition to confusing the subject of protection and action in the judgment, the excessive floating of the specific risk identification leads to the loss of filtering function of the constituent elements and the clarity. Due to the hollowing out of the elements of crimes, the actor cannot predict what kind of effect on the law shall cause by his behavior, thus shall not strengthen the normative functions to reach the preconceived goal of preventing harm. In the criterion of the Securities and Exchange Act on the financial report liability, separate out the subjective intention of the actor’s intention of fraud or illegal intent, depending on the law of infringement and the application of different competing relations to be offended by criminal sanctions. Compared with the problems derived from the application of the crime of forgery, the criminal lawsuit, the civil compensation and the administrative penalties for those who intend to illegal act more deterrent. This kind of criterion of economic criminal law not only conforms to the modest thought and the ultimate means of criminal law, but also more conform with the spirit of the statutory principle of punishment of crime. Considering the legal interests we care about, it is a reasonable option to abolish the crime of forging documents and return to the lex specialis if the special criterion of each individual regulation are more effective in protecting.
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] thesis

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	246	View/Open

View Licence

Loading...