| 摘要: | 於民國76年行政院所核定發布之「現階段環境保護綱領」，開宗明義揭示「保護自然環境，維護生態平衡，以求世代永續利用」之目標。我國環境權之保護，始由警察法領域進展至計畫經營之階段，並於民國81年納入憲法增修條文第10條，成為綱領式之環境基本國策條款，後於民國88年將環境保護於刑法新增第190條之1流放毒物罪，刑法中唯一的環境刑法條文。我國在民國98年正式簽署兩公約，其中包括聯合國推行之第三波人權－環境權。是以，我國一定要對環境作出積極保護之宣誓，並落實該項環境人權，亦是司法改革須與國際接軌施行之方向。
我國雖因過去之經濟發展，享有經濟奇蹟之美譽，但卻忽略了環境保育之重要，也因此在環境保護方面付出了相當大的代價。近年由於國內許多不肖業者或其員工，為謀一己之私利或貪圖方便，不惜犧牲掉社會大眾之健康安危，於進行事業活動之同時，投棄、流放、排出、放逸或以他法使毒物或其他有害健康之物汙染了空氣、土壤、河川或其他水體等，導致我國各項環境汙染日益嚴重，造成環境無法彌補之傷害。而許多不肖業者或其員工就是因環境犯罪不易被察覺之低風險，且犯罪構成要件須符合「致生公共危險」之具體危險犯條件，才可能該當，導致成罪案件少，卻早已危害到我國國民健康及生活環境。
刑法第190條之1修法之引爆點為民國102年日月光公司排放廢水案，當時引起社會輿論之譁然，遂於民國107年通過該條文修正為抽象危險犯，並增訂其他相關要件，以期有助犯罪之追訴及遏制犯罪之誘因。然而我國此次刑法第190條之1之修正是否能夠與國際上相關法規範接軌？環境權立法思潮及國家管制理念如何變遷？該條文能否完整避免流物毒物污染空氣、土壤或水體致生環境之傷害，進而達成環境基本權之保護實效？相關判決實務之現況為何？本文試圖從環境保護法規範之國際發展趨勢、環境保護刑法規範之演進及司法實務有關流放毒物罪判決研析等脈絡是否妥當進行研究分析，並提出修正芻議。
The "Environmental Protection Program at the Current Stage" approved and is-sued by the Executive Yuan in 1987, clearly stated the goal of "protecting the natural environment, maintaining ecological balance, and seeking sustainable use from gener-ation to generation." The protection of environmental rights in our country began from the field of police law to the stage of planned operation, and it was incorporated into Article 10 of the constitutional amendment in 1981, becoming a programmatic envi-ronmental basic national policy clause, and then environmental protection in 1988 Ar-ticle 190-1 of the criminal law is added to the crime of exiled poison, the only envi-ronmental criminal law provision in the criminal law. my country formally signed two conventions in 1998, including the third wave of human rights-environmental rights promoted by the United Nations. Therefore, our country must take an oath to actively protect the environment and implement the environmental human rights, which is also the direction for judicial reform to be implemented in line with international stand-ards.
Although our country enjoys the reputation of economic miracle due to its eco-nomic development in the past, it has neglected the importance of environmental pro-tection and has therefore paid a considerable price for environmental protection. In recent years, many unscrupulous businessmen or their employees in China, for their own personal gain or for convenience, do not hesitate to sacrifice the health and safety of the public, while carrying out business activities, abandon, exile, discharge, let go or use other methods to make poison or Other substances harmful to health pollute the air, soil, rivers or other water bodies, etc., resulting in increasingly serious environ-mental pollution in our country, causing irreparable damage to the environment. However, many unscrupulous businessmen or their employees have low risk because of environmental crimes that are not easily detectable, and the constitutional require-ments of the crime must meet the specific dangerous offense conditions of "causing public danger". my country's national health and living environment.
The tipping point of the amendment to Article 190-1 of the Criminal Law was the discharge of wastewater by ASE in the Republic of China in 102. At that time, it caused an uproar in the public opinion. Therefore, in Republic of China, the article was amended as an abstract dangerous offense in the Republic of China in 107, and other relevant requirements were added to help. Prosecution of crimes and restraining the incentives of crimes. However, can the amendment of Article 190-1 of my country's Criminal Law be in line with relevant international laws and regulations? How have environmental rights legislation thoughts and national control concepts changed? Can this provision completely prevent the pollution of air, soil or water from liquid poisons from causing environmental damage, and then achieve the protection of fundamental environmental rights? What is the current status of relevant judgments? This article attempts to conduct research and analysis on the appropriateness of the international development trend of environmental protection laws and regulations, the evolution of environmental protection criminal laws, and the judicial practice related to the re-search and analysis of the judgments on the crime of exile of poisons, and propose amendments. |
