政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/98039
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 114205/145239 (79%)
造访人次 : 52610476      在线人数 : 793
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98039


    题名: 無故取得電磁紀錄罪之解釋及立法
    作者: 薛智仁
    Hsueh, Chih-Jen
    关键词: 無故取得電磁紀錄;資訊安全之社會信賴;整體財產利益;個人秘密利益;妨害電腦使用罪章;無故概念;告訴權人;致生損害於公眾或他人
    Obtaining Magnetic Records;Social Trust in Information Security;Personal Property as a Whole;Personal Privacy;Chapter on Offenses against the Use of Computer;Concept of Without Good Cause;The Person Who Has the Right to File a Law Suit;Causing Damages to the Public or Others
    日期: 2014-03
    上传时间: 2016-06-20 11:01:52 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 針對無故取得他人電磁紀錄的行為，立法者在一九九七年增訂刑法第三二三條，將電磁紀錄視為準動產並適用竊盜罪予以處罰，在二○○三年則是刪除該準動產規定，與刪除及變更他人電磁紀錄的行為一併規定於增訂之第三五九條。此一構成要件的保護法益內涵為何，迄今在實務及學說上尚無共識，相關構成要件的解釋因而顯得漫無方向。其問題根源在於，無故取得電磁紀錄罪的構成要件過於概括，使得各種保護法益的觀點都只能局部解釋本罪的處罰根據。在檢視立法理由的說明及國內學說的主張之後，本文認為在現行法底下，無故取得電磁紀錄罪不在保障資訊安全的社會信賴，也不在保障電磁紀錄之資料私密性，而是在保障個人的整體財產。這個觀點，最符合本罪的立法沿革、法定刑設計及法律明確性的要求。本文依此提出本罪在現行法底下的解釋方案，並附帶檢討最高法院針對臺灣陶氏公司案的判決。同時，為了根本地解決本罪保護方向不明的問題，初步建議未來宜朝保護個人秘密的方向修正本罪。
    The act of obtaining magnetic records of others without good cause was criminalized in 1997 by amending Article 323 to consider magnetic records as personal property. In 2003, such amendment was deleted and this act and the act of deleting or altering others’ magnetic records were criminalized in Article 359. The legal interest that the Article sets out to protect is still in controversy both in practice and in academia resulting in widely divided interpretations of the elements of the crime. After reviewing the explanation in criminalizing such act and the opinions in academia, the paper concludes that under the current law, the purpose of criminalizing such act is neither to protect social trust in information security nor to protect the secrecy of the information stored in the magnetic records but to protect personal property as a whole. Only this proposition could fully explain the criminalization of the act, the punishment that imposed on such act and the request for clarity. Based on this, this paper reviews the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Dow Chemical Taiwan case and further suggests amending this Article to protect personal privacy.
    關聯: 法學評論, 136,45-128頁
    Chengchi law review
    数据类型: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.3966%2f102398202014030136002
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202014030136002
    显示于类别:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    136(45-128).pdf1279KbAdobe PDF2704检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈