輔仁法學第43期

在當代，人們總是重視自己的隱私，其意指要每個人都擁有不欲人知而專屬於自己的秘密。事實上，隱私也常與人性尊嚴這樣一個最高位階的人權連結，因此，只要我們承認一個人是人，我們即應確認其應具有隱私權。在社會運作下，許多人沒有足夠的時間與財富，他及他們的孩子無法正常地成長及生活，並容易誤入歧途，在一連串的訴訟程序後被送入監獄，呈現出一個結構性的社會問題。事實上，一旦他們被送入監獄，即為社會輿論及政治力破壞殆盡，這兩道力量一再地打擊他們。多數人或許有幸被教育，並認為受刑人並沒有做為一個人應有的人格，從而，受刑人也不配享有人性尊嚴及適當的隱私了。然而，這樣的想法不僅殘酷而不理性，也是愚蠢而無法根本地解決社會問題。今日，倘若我們欲排除這樣的不正義，就必須重開市民論辯，使每個人知悉一個簡單的道理，即「受刑人與是人」，我們不能恣意地剝奪其隱私。事實上，在監獄中侵害隱私權的情形無所不在，許多行動都讓受刑人感受到不受尊重。本文即討論受刑人是否具有隱私權，並以入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查為例，討論目前監獄行政措施的合憲性。

關鍵字：隱私、人性尊嚴、隱私合理期待、隱私合理要求、私密空間、特殊需求、受刑人、行政搜索

In cotemporary, people always respect for everyone’s privacy. It means everyone has their own secrets. Actually, privacy is often connected with human dignity, which is the highest level of human right. Therefore, as long as we admit a person is a human, we should confirm he or she has privacy. In modern society, much people don’t have enough time and money; however our government can’t take care of them. They neither receive enough education, nor obtain sufficient attention from society or country, nor earn adequate respect from members of this world. Their children can’t growth normally and easy to go on the track, then commit a crime and put them into the prison during the trial proceeding. Without doubt, those social problems are constructional problem in the world, no matter where you are. In fact, once they are put into the jail, they are destroyed thoroughly by the public opinion and political force. The both strength strike them together once again. Maybe we have been educated that the prisoner has no character to be a person. Herewith, of course, prisoners have no human dignity, and properly have no privacy. However, these methods are not only cruel and irrational, but also stupid. It can’t solve problems fundamentally. Today, if we want to eliminate the injustices, we will open the citizen debate again. During deliberation, let everyone knows a simple conception, “prisoners are still human”, that we can’t deprive of their privacy abusively. By these ways, we should understand, “Prisoners, only lose their own liberty, but who still have foundational dignity to be a person.” Indeed, privacy is one of the ways to embody human dignity. If we don’t admit prisoners have privacy, it almost identify that they are not people. Actually, the violation of privacy in prison is omnipresent. All of these actions make prisoners feel they are not respected. This article will discuss if prisoners have privacy or not, and give examples on cavities search when prisoners enter prison and correspondence inspection, review the constitutionality of both administrative action.

Keywords：Privacy, Human Dignity, Expectation of Privacy, Rational Requirement of Privacy, Intimate Space, Special Needs, Inmate, Administrative Searches

目 次
壹、問題之提出
貳、受刑人的地位
一、司法解釋下的特別權力關係
二、特別權力關係崩解下的受刑人地位
參、限制隱私權合憲性的判斷標準
一、隱私權的憲法基礎
（一）外國法制的參考
（二）我國實務上的運作
二、隱私權的概念範疇
三、限制隱私權的合憲性操作
（一）隱私權核心範疇的探究
（二）隱私合理要求的判斷：「隱私合理期待」概念的再檢討
（三）對「特殊需求」概念的質疑
（四）是否具備合理懷疑的考量
四、限制隱私權之合憲性的判斷流程
肆、侵害受刑人隱私權的合憲性探討
一、安全檢查的本質與內容
（一）安全檢查的目的及形式
（二）入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查的內容
二、受刑人是否具有私密空間
三、入監全身檢查及書信安全檢查是否否定人性尊嚴
四、受刑人對於書信內容是否有隱私的合理要求
五、受刑人之隱私與公益間的權衡
（一）書信安全檢查的行政目的
（二）現行書信安全檢查的合憲性檢討
伍、結語

多年來隨著經濟成長與社會變遷，台灣跨域性經濟犯罪與日俱增。在經濟犯罪的防制上，我國立法上雖制定有為數不少的刑事處罰規定，且其中部分規定或屬必要。惟對於違反經濟秩序行為，究應施以行政罰或刑罰，除應先符合法治國家原則外，其有動用刑罰之必要者，更須符合刑法基本原理之要求。
因此，本文除歸納整理近年來重大跨域經濟犯罪之事例外，進一步以證券交易法有關刑事處罰之規定為例，檢討其是否符合法治國家原則以及刑法基本原理，用作立法改進之參考。

關鍵字：跨域犯罪、經濟犯罪、證券交易犯罪、抽象危險犯、法益保護

Over the years, with the economic growth and social change, transnational economic crimes are continuing to grow in Taiwan. There was formulated a large number of criminal penalties in Taiwan's legislation for economic crime prevention. However the Methods of Deal with the behaviors of violating economic order, whether should use punishment or administrative penalty, Must comply with the principle of rule of law and the general principles of criminal law.
Therefore, the purpose of this article, first to Analysis and organize the cases of transnational economic crime. Then to review the provisions of Securities Exchange Act.

Keywords：Transnational Crime, Economic Crime, the Crime of Securities Exchange, Abstract Offences with Endangering the Legal Interests, Protection of Legal Interests

目 次
壹、經濟犯罪概述
一、經濟犯罪之意義
（一）與國家財政經濟有關的經濟犯罪
（二）與營業經濟有關的經濟犯罪
（三）與國民經濟有關的經濟犯罪
（四）與社會大眾及消費者有關的經濟犯罪
二、本文之重點
貳、台灣跨域經濟犯罪之探討
一、台灣跨域經濟犯罪之狀況
二、近年來台灣重大跨域經濟犯罪實案
（一）太電案
（二）博達案
（三）久津案
（四）紅火案
（五）保盛豐案
三、台灣重大跨域經濟犯罪之檢討
（一）公司犯罪
（二）金融犯罪
（三）證券犯罪
參、跨域犯罪刑事規制之問題所在
一、經濟刑法之適用與審判權
（一）刑法之適用效力概念
（二）經濟刑法適用效力規定
（三）區際刑法之基本概念
（四）台灣有關兩岸四地區際刑法之法制
二、司法互助之協議與執行
（一）司法互助之作用
（二）台灣與外國司法互助之狀況
（三）兩岸四地司法互助之現狀
肆、經濟犯罪之刑事立法探討
一、經濟刑法與刑法總則
（一）經濟刑法與刑法第11條
（二）刑法總則對於經濟刑法之影響
二、空白刑法之運用
（一）空白刑法之意義
（二）空白刑法運用之限制
三、抽象危險犯與經濟法益侵害性
（一）危險犯概念
（二）危險犯與經濟犯罪構成要件
四、純正不作為犯與經濟法益保護義務
（一）不作為犯之概念
（二）純正不作為犯之運用限制
伍、代結論－台灣證券犯罪之立法檢討
一、台灣證券犯罪之立法狀況
二、台灣證券犯罪之立法缺失
（一）證券刑法與刑總難以接軌
（二）空白刑法之運用常有違憲情形
（三）部分證券犯罪構成要件違反法益保護原則
（四）部分證券犯罪不作為犯之設計不當

隨著文明的發展，以「人」為標的的買賣、質押、剝削、凌虐、販運之行為，不僅並未消失，甚至隨著近代跨國媒體傳播與運輸之便捷，迅速發展成一個全球性之問題。為此，國際社會從20世紀初即開始以各式之國際協定、公約加以防制，歐盟亦於21世紀開始跟進，研擬各項的防制措施。美國，更是從2001年起每年出版人口販運報告，督促世界各國重視人口販運之問題。我國國內，亦於2009通過防制人口販運之專法。然而，由於人口販運之問題，牽涉層面甚廣，涉及的面向及於法律制度、法律之執行、國境控管、性別、犯罪、國家安全及人權等問題，又夾雜著國際經濟失衡、犯罪組織的商業利益、洗錢、毒品交易、武器走私等跨國犯罪，且常會隨著網路等新興科技的進步轉換成不同的形式進行與茁壯，使得世界各國在對抗此一問題時，常顯捉襟見肘。
因此，本文將藉由人口販運問題之研究，比較目前國際上、歐美各國以及我國在對抗人口販運時所採取之防制方法，以檢視目前世界各國及我國在因應此一問題時，是否已對症下藥。

關鍵字：人口販運、人口買賣、跨國犯罪、強迫勞工、性販運

According to the International Labor Organization, approximately 2.5 million people are trafficked within and across borders at any point of time. The United States government estimates that between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders annually. Human trafficking is a complex, multi-faceted problem that intertwines issues of law enforcement, border control, gender, crime, security and human rights. Although all kinds of strategies and approach have been adopted to combat the problem, the problem of human trafficking continue to thrive and take on new forms and dimensions with the advent of technologies such as the internet, accessible transportation methods and the globalization of the sex industry. This article explores the background and causes of human trafficking, and examines international, European, American and Taiwanese approaches to combating trafficking.

Keywords : Human Trafficking, Illegal Immigration, Sexual Trafficking, Transnational Organized Crime, Forced Labor

目 次
壹、前言
貳、跨域人口販運問題之探究
一、人口販運之全球性
二、人口販運之方式
三、人口販運之成因
四、人口販運之定義
參、跨域人口販運問題之防制
一、國際規約之防制
二、美國之防制
三、歐盟之防制
四、我國之防制
肆、結論

關於民法上債務不履行之型態，我國最高法院將債務不履行分為「給付不能」、「給付遲延」及「不完全給付」三種類型，然究竟何謂「拒絕給付」？其是否為我國民法上債務不履行之獨立類型？對於債務人之救濟是否妥適？再者，關於違約金之約定，原依私法自治及契約自由原則，本得由契約當事人之雙方互相約定決之，我國民法為期公平，乃規定約定之違約金過高者，法院得酌減相當之數額，此一核減之數額，係屬法院之職權，然有疑問者，乃此種法院依職權酌減違約金之行為，究屬債務人之酌減權而須經請求始得發動，抑或僅得由法院依職權發動之即可？又其酌減後之效果，若已先行支付之違約金，其經酌減之部分是否另有成立不當得利而必須返還予債務人？其不當得利之成立時點又為何？本文即擬以最高法院93年台上字第42號判決暨最高法院97年度台上1078號判決，作為論理基礎，希冀對於臺灣民法上關於債務不履行之型態與違約金酌減此等特殊立法之制度，探討其法理之研究。

關鍵字：給付拒絕、債務不履行、違約金酌減、不當得利、給付不能、給付遲延、不完全給付

The types of no-performance include impossibility of performance, default of performance and incompletion of performance. However, what is the meaning of refusing to perform the obligations? Is it an independent type of no-performance in Civil Law? And is the legal remedy to the debtor appropriate? Furthermore, the penalty could be agreed by the contractual parties in accordance with principles of automony of private law and the freedom of contract but in order to treat both of the contractual parties equally in the Civile law, it regulates that if the agreed penaly is disproportionately high, the court may reduce it to a reasonable amount, which is authorized to the court. But it is doubtful that could the court's authority of reducing penalty be conducted upon the application by the debtor or by the court itself according to the authority? If the debtor had paid the penalty, the effect of implementing the authority of reducing penalty is that the reduced amount should be bound to return to the debtor based on the cause of action of unjust enrichment? And when does the unjust enrichment take effect? The paper take the theoretic foundations, presented both in the cases adjuged by the Taiwan Supreme Court whose case numbers are Taishentzu 42, 2004 and Taishentzu 1078, 2008 to discuss and analyze the special systems of the type of no-performance and the authority of reducing penalty in Taiwan Civil Law.

Keywords: Reduce to Performan, Non-Performance, Reduce the Penalty, Unjustly Enrichment, Oimpossibility of Performance, Default of Performance, Incompletion of Performance

目 次
壹、論給付拒絕-以最高法院93年台上字第42號判決為中心
一、前言
二、最高法院93年台上字第42號判決摘要
（一）事實摘要
（二）判決要旨摘要
三、民法給付拒絕之研究
（一）給付拒絕之意義
（二）給付拒絕是否為一種獨立之債務不履行型態？
（三）給付拒絕之要件
（四）給付拒絕之效力
四、最高法院93年台上字第42號判決評析
貳、論民法違約金酌減與不當得利之聯結－以最高法院97年台上字第1078號判決為中心
一、前言
二、最高法院97年台上字第1078號判決之問題
（一）最高法院97年台上第1078字第號判決之事實摘要
（二）本件問題爭點之提出
（三）民法第252條有關違約金酌減之相關問題
（四）債務人得否提起「請求核減違約金之形成之訴」？
（五）若已支付之違約金，債務人是否仍得提起形成之訴？法院是否仍可依職權酌減之？
三、經酌減之違約金與不當得利間之關係
（一）民法第252條就酌減後之違約金部分，是否有成立不當得利之可能？
四、評析最高法院97年台上字第1078號判決

擔保為確保融資回收之最佳利器，世界各國無不競相完備其法制。我國民法物權編於2006年修正時，不僅修正民法第879條之規定，更增列第879條之1，以謀求解決過去人保與物保並存時，何者應優先負擔之爭議，並規範兩者平等比例分擔之計算基準，以資適用。惟關於人保與物保為多數，或具有雙重身分時，究應如何定人保與物保之應分擔基準，因未予明文，致不論在實務上或學說上均有不同之解讀，迭生爭議。
本文擬從人保與物保本質上之不同為出發，仔細檢審民法第879條第2項之立法原意，並參考中、日學說與實務上對於此一問題之解釋，以釐清上開問題之關鍵所在，並尋求最佳的解決之道。在綜合比較各種見解之後，本文認為，關於第879條第2項之適用，無論人保與物保係單一抑或為多數，其個別之應分擔額均係以每一人保之「履行責任」及每一物保之「價值」或「限定分擔之金額」為比例計算所得。至於雙重身分者，應以責任競合結果，屬較重責任者為其身分，但無論以何者為身分，其無先訴抗辯權之適用，且共同擔保權人及其承受權人均仍得對雙重身分者所供抵押物優先受償。

關鍵字：共同擔保、雙重身分者、人保（保證人）、物保（抵押）、先訴抗辯權、民法第879條

Considering that securities are the best insurance policy against bad loans, governments around the world are actively perfecting related laws. The Republic of China is no different: in a 2006 amendment to the Civil Law Property Right Title Act , Article 879 was fixed and Article 879-1 was added to settle the issue of the priority and ratio of debt payment by surety and mortgage when both are eligible. That being said, the amendment in question leaves out the scenarios of multiple sureties and mortgages, as well as double qualification. Under such circumstances, various interpretations of the law have arisen among scholars and in court, causing confusion and controversy.
This paper intends to examine the original intent of Section 2 of Article 879 of the above-mentioned act by looking into the different natures of surety and mortgage, as well as seeking insights from ROC and Japanese literature and practices, By doing so, this paper ventures to offer a best solution to the current controversy, arguing that the question of whether the number of the surety and mortgage is one or more is irrelevant and that the allotted share of debt payment responsibility for each surety and mortgage should be decided by the ratio of its original responsibility against the total responsibility added up by each eligible surety and mortgage. Meanwhile, in the double qualification situation, the final allotted share of debt payment responsibility shall be the larger of the calculated responsibility of the two qualifications and no matter what qualification that is suiting, the “benefit of discussion” shall not apply and the guarantee of the common security and his or her assignee still has the priority of being paid by the securities.

Keywords： Common Security, Double Qualification, Surety, Mortgage, Benefit of Discussion, Civil Law Article 879

目 次
壹、前言
貳、法院案例事實及判決結果
一、案例事實
二、地方法院判決
三、高等法院判決
四、最高法院判決
參、共同擔保之分擔法理
一、修法前之實務運作
二、修法後之條文規範
三、第879條第2項前段之解釋與適用
四、第879條第2項後段之問題與功能
肆、雙重身分者之分擔責任
一、我國學說與實務之見解
二、日本學說與實務之見解
三、本文見解
（一）各種理論之問題
（二）解決之道
伍、結論

Maritime hazard, as well-known, are far higher than on land. Some regimes were therefore developed to encourage efforts to save life and property being endangered at sea. General average and salvage are the two typical examples. In addition and under marine insurance, the assureds and its agents or servants, in case of any loss or misfortune, are expected to take any measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss covered by the policy.
English law on marine insurance, as codified by the Marine Insurance Act 1906, classifies the costs of rescuing operations in a complicated way under four headings: salvage charges (section 65), general average (section 66), particular charges (section 65.1) and suing and labouring expenses (section 78). The acts for incurring those expenses/charges are collectively called “saving acts”. Furthermore, the practical Institute clauses give a different application on the costs of rescuing operation from the statute - Marine Insurance Act 1906, while the York-Antwerp Rules is also applied. These different situations and their inter-relationship are not only complex but also exist lots of disputes. For instance, what are the real legal status of the Lloyd‘s Open Form or other salvage contracts under the Marine Insurance Act 1906? “Particular charges” stands its legal status on the Marine Insurance Act 1906. However, almost all marine insurance textbooks state that particular charges can only be recovered under the suing and labouring clause. Is this viewpoint critical?
This paper, by referring all the cases cited by drafting the 1906 Marine insurance Act, analyses the nature and differences among these four kinds of saving acts/expenses and finally to explain their applications by various kinds of salvaged.

Keywords: Marine Insurance, 1906 Marine Insurance Act, Salvage Charges, General Average, Particular Charges, Suing and Labouring Charges

由於海上風險較高之故，海事法領域發展出若干針對受難人員及財物進行救助之鼓勵制度，共同海損及海難救助即為其中典型二例。此情況亦發生於海上保險，於發生事故或不幸時，保險人亦期待被保險人及其受雇人或代理人能採取任何能避免或減輕事故損失之作為。
全球海上保險所繼受之英國1906年海上保險法將救助作業所生費用區分四類型：亦即第65條救助費用（salvage charges）、第66條共同海損（general average）、第64條第2項單獨費用（particular charges）及第78條損害防阻費用（suing and labouring expenses）。發生此四類費用或損失之行為學理上統稱為「救助行為或施救行為saving acts」。此四類費用施救本質雖然類似，然彼此間原本法律性質不同，適用要件及效力亦互異，而20世紀許多不同費用型態之發生及實務條款之使用，進一步複雜化四類費用間彼此間之適用爭議。例如非屬「不成功無報酬」之海難救助費用（含特別補償金special compensation）究應屬哪項費用名下為保險請求？即有爭議。更甚之，原本擁有相當明確法律地位的「單獨費用」，多年來因為英國學術普遍主張該費用得於「損害防阻條款」下獲償，而隱蓋了「單獨費用」之真正意涵。
本文針對英國1906年海上保險法前述四項費用之相關規定及其1906年立法之初所參考之各項判決為分析，藉以釐清各項費用之本質及其間差異。本文最後以救助費用各類型為範例，以說明四類費用間之正確適用。

關鍵字：海上保險、英國1906年海上保險法、共同海損、救助費用、單獨費用、損害防阻費用

Contents
Ⅰ Introduction
（I）Framework and regulation under the 1906 M.I.A. for various saving acts
（II）Research purpose and restriction of this paper
Ⅱ Salvage charges
（I）Phraseology
（II）Definition and classification
（III）The features of “Salvage Charges” on M.I.A s.65
Ⅲ General Average
（I）General
（II）Statutory definition and essential factors of general average
（III）General average and salvage charges
Ⅳ Suing and Labouring Clauses
（I）The history and origin of the suing and labouring clauses
（II）The “duty” clause
（III）The indemnity clause
（IV）Suing and labouring expenses, salvage charges and general average in comparison
Ⅴ Particular Charges
（I）Custom of Lloyd‘s and legal status of particular charges
（II）Definition, ingredients and in comparison with the suing and labouring expenses
（III）Application between “Particular charges” and “Sue and Labouring”
Ⅵ Conclusion – Four Acts in Comparison and Example by applying various kinds of salvages
（I）Particular charges, suing and labouring expenses, salvage charges and general average in comparison
（II）Example by Applying various kinds of salvages

美國法並未定義避險基金，通常其因私募豁免登記，並豁免美國相關法令之適用，其中包括1933年證券法、1934年證券交易法、1940年投資公司法、1940年投資顧問法以及1940年商品交易法等。
由於避險基金因豁免登記，未受管理，內部控制與風險管理不佳，曾引發多起重大舞弊或倒閉事件，在2008年金融風暴時，亦被關切是否係引發系統風險來源之一，故美國歐巴馬總統公布2010年私募基金投資顧問登記法，以茲因應與解決。
本文主要採用比較法觀點作研究，對於美國避險基金之立法沿革及制度作瞭解，並介紹未來的發展趨勢，針對避險基金相關規範之內容與實務運作，作一鉅細靡遺的窺視，加以分析比較，並進行檢討與提出建議，作為本國法制之借鏡與參考。

關鍵字：避險基金、避險基金規則、看穿、私募、管理失靈、自律、系統風險

U.S.regulation does not define hedge funds which are private offerings exempted from registration and regulation including the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Commodity Exchange Act.
There are some scandals and debacles involving hedge funds that happened over the past few years due to poor internal control, risk management and non-registration. There was concern about whether hedge funds were a factor of systemic risk during the financial crisis in 2008.Toward the aim of resolving these issues; the U.S.President signed the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010.
I will examine the history, operation, practice and regulation of U.S.hedge funds with regard to their introduction to the Taiwan Securities Market.

Keywords： Hedge Fund, Hedge Fund Rule, Look Through, Private Offering, Regulatory Failures, Self-regulatory, Systemic Risk

目 次
壹、前言
一、研究動機與目的
二、研究範圍與方法
貳、美國避險基金現行相關法律之適用
一、證券法
（一）避險基金係證券法之有價證券
（二）避險基金依私募豁免證券法規定
（三）美國證券法Regulation D合格投資人之檢討
二、證券交易法
（一）避險基金豁免證券交易法經紀商、自營商登記之規定
（二）避險基金仍適用證券交易法詐欺等相關規定
三、投資顧問法
（一）概說
（二）主要法令遵循的議題與豁免的法效
（三）豁免規定
（四）新反詐欺規則（New Antifraud Rule）
四、投資公司法
五、商品交易法
（一）規範基金經理人與投資顧問，不規範基金
（二）商品基金經理人、商品交易顧問之豁免登記
參、美國重大避險基金案例-到底問題在那裡
一、1998年美國長期資本管理公司（LTCM）事件
（一）美國長期資本管理公司概說
（二）LTCM事件的教訓-市場自律失靈
二、曼哈頓避險基金（Manhattan Hedge Fund）
（一）案例概說
（二）主管機關規範失靈
三、Amaranth破產事件
（一）背景介紹
（二）Amaranth失敗之因
（三）處理方式
（四）美國國會對事件之檢討
（五）檢討與變革
四、貝爾斯登避險基金（Bear Stearns hedge funds）
（一）案例概况
（二）再次顯現政府失靈
五、馬多夫（Bernard Madoff）詐騙案
（一）背景
（二）主管機關未能發現問題
（三）主管機關未能採取適當措施
（四）馬多夫事件監理問題
肆、新法案真的能解決問題嗎
一、私募基金投資顧問登記法訂定背景
二、私募基金投資顧問登記法內容
（一）有限州際登記豁免
（二）刪除私人投資顧問登記豁免規定
（三）限制商品交易顧問等登記的豁免
（四）州與聯邦的責任─1億美元的門檻
（五）系統風險相關規定
（六）保管
（七）合格投資人標準
（八）GOA與美國證管會的研究
（九）授權訂定法規命令
三、相關子法修正草案
四、新法案的問題
（一）美國主管機關豁免外國避險基金會造成另一系統風險的來源
（二）避險基金申報規定不能解決系統風險的問題
（三）增加業者成本阻礙業務發展
（四）無法達到保護投資人的目的
（五）避險基金過度規範的負面影響
伍、美國避險基金的真正問題
一、美國切割式法規產生適用困擾
二、美國避險基金豁免適用產生漏洞
三、內控不佳與自律失靈
四、管理失靈－查核方式有待改進
五、過度相信信用評等機構─過猶不及
陸、國內引進避險基金法制的建議─代結論
一、同意避險基金及避險基金辦理登記
二、減少對信用評等機構的依賴
三、加強查核與強化監理方式
四、檢視私募專業投資人之豁免標準
五、強化自律機制