輔仁法學第42期

我國已批准聯合國公民與政治權利國際公約，並已制定「公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法」（以下簡稱兩公約施行法）之際，關於我國防止人口販運法制是否符合國際潮流，並與相關國際公約有效接軌，姑不論是否將因此受到美國經濟制裁，防止人口販運法制健全與否，將實質影響我國國際形象。本文擬以相關國際公約中有關防止人口販運等規定為基礎，並檢討我國有關防止人口販運法制，供相關機關參考。

關鍵字：人口販運、奴隸、預防、保護、起訴

After Ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Taiwan enacted it implementing law to prevent human trafficking. Regardless of economic sanctions imposed by the United States, to establish a solid legal system effectively preventing human trafficking would better the international image of Taiwan. Based on the current provisions preventing human trafficking of International Conventions, this study examines the current law regarding human trafficking in Taiwan.

Keywords: Human Trafficking, Slave, Prevention, Protection, Prosecution

目 次
壹、前言
貳、國際公約有關人口販運之規定
叁、有關人口販運之我國法制
一、以刑法與其他行政法規為個別規範之基礎
二、制定人口販運防制法以為統一規範之基礎
肆、我國人口販運防制法與國際公約之比較
伍、我國人口販運防制法與國內其他法律之比較
一、刑法規範之不足
二、刑事處罰之補充性
（一）性剝削部分
（二）勞力剝削部分
（三）器官摘取部分
三、制定人口販運防制法之意義
四、現行人口販運防制法之法定刑度過輕
五、現行人口販運防制法及實務見解有悖於性交易防制之目的
六、現行人口販運防制法無助於器官摘取之遏止
陸、結論

法務部以為貪污案件之偵辦要比其他普通刑案更為不易，原因即在於調查取證的困難，尤其在清查貪污之資金流向部分，往往使案情陷於膠著，即便查出公務員有不明來源財產時，如檢察官要求其說明來源，而無正當理由未為說明、無法提出合理說明或說明不實時，倘檢察官握有之證據未達貪污罪起訴門檻，即得論以罪刑較輕之財產來源不明罪相繩，此其制定目的之所在；近來，更修法擴大其適用範圍。然而，關於本罪之立法妥適性以及是否與人權保障之宗旨相違背，學理及實務存有不少爭論。本文乃從本罪之立法沿革出發，綜合評析不同理論與觀點，重新檢視本罪之妥當性，並提供修法建議。

關鍵字：人權保障、公務員、財產來源不明、辯護權、貪污、賄賂、貪污所得擬制、說明義務、罪刑相當原則

It is the opinion of MOJ that the investigation on corruption crimes is even more difficult than general criminal crimes because the collection of the evidences is difficult, especially the investigation into the capital flow, which often make the legal case stalemated. Even though a public servant is found holding the property of unidentified sources, when the prosecuting attorney doesn’t have enough evidences to prosecute the public servant for corruption crimes, accordingly, he just can prosecute the public servant only for holding property of unidentified sources. That is the purpose of its legislation. Recently, the applied scope is even more broadened by amendment. However, there are a few disputes in academic and practical fields regarding whether this has been properly regulated by law whether the law has been against the protection of the human rights or not. This research is based on the past legislative history, and analyses the competing theories and perspectives comprehensively, in order to review the properness of the law and suggest its amendment.

Keywords：Human rights indemnify , the public servant, Holding property of unidentified sources, the right to counsel, Corruption, Bribery, Presume the earnings of corruption, Illustrative obligation, Balanced principle of crime and punishment

目 次
壹、前言
貳、財產來源不明罪之規範解析
一、制定始末
二、2011年修正狀況
三、規範目的
四、構成要件
五、處罰效果
參、支持立法之論點與疑義
一、順應世界反貪腐潮流
二、符合國民法感情
三、維護國家利益
四、解決貪污案偵查上困難
五、提升貪污案定罪率
肆、質疑立法之論據與省思
一、違反無罪推定
二、違反不自證己罪
三、侵害被告之緘默權
（一）說明義務之法理基礎
（二）說明義務之內容與判斷基準
四、檢察官發動權限欠明
五、省思
伍、財產來源不明罪之檢討
一、本罪之立法檢討
二、性質難解之新增犯罪類型
三、雙軌處罰是否妥適
四、公務員之忠實對象－國家vs.檢察官
五、本罪與公職人員財產申報法第12條之關係
六、本罪與其他貪污罪之關係
陸、實踐運作建言及修法方向擬議
一、實踐運作建言
（一）適用現況
（二）完備配套機制，確保檢察官中立行使職權
（三）專業偵查技能之研究與培訓
（四）非刑罰方式之各項管制作為
（五）司法實踐之真諦在從人權角度思考司法運作
二、修法方向之擬議
（一）先行政後司法之漸進式制裁
（二）本罪之先位性與備位性
（三）從不作為犯方向立法
柒、結論

名譽權為一種獨立的人格權，且為重要人格權，自應予以保護，故各國法律大多對名譽權設有保護規定。惟人之權利能力始於出生，終於死亡（民法第6條），人死亡後（以下稱為死者），已非權利主體，其人格權所賴以依附之主體已不存在，從而死者的人格權（尤其是名譽、隱私、肖像、姓名）遭受侵害（毀損）時，在民事侵權行為法上應如何加以保護，乃成為侵權行為法的重要課題。
由於保護死者的名譽，在尊重人的尊嚴及促進人格價值的自由發展上，尤其具有積極正面的意義及功能，因此應如何保護死者的名譽，自有加以深入研究之,必要。本文係就有關侵害死者名譽所發生民事責任之若干重要問題，即應加以保護的利益為何（精神利益或財產利益）？受保護的係死者本身的人格法益抑或其遺族的人格法益？死者的人格法益受侵害時，有何救濟方法？何人得為其請求權人？參考國內外相關規定、學說及判例，並就兩岸關於保護死者名譽之實務發展，加以比較及分析。

關鍵詞：人格權、名譽、名譽權、名譽權之侵害、死者的名譽權

Right of fame, as an independent and an importance of moral rights, should be protected with no doubt, therefore related protection of it exists in the majority of worldwide legal provisions . However, legal capacity of right begins at birth and vanishes while death (Civil Code Article 6), man who dies (hereinafter referred as ”the deceased”) is no longer subject of rights, the subject which their human rights attached no longer exists, so it becomes an vital issue in tort law to protect the deceased's right of personality (particularly on reputation, privacy, portraiture right, right of name) from being infringed (violated, destroyed).
Because the protection of the deceased’s reputation does have positive meaning and function on human dignity and promoting free evolvement of personality , therefore it’s necessary to thoroughly study that how to protect the deceased’s reputation. This article is all about several important issues relating to infringement of the deceased’s reputation and civil responsibility aroused by it, for example, What’s the exact interest to protect?( spiritual interests or property interests?) It’s the deceased’s personal legal interest to protect or those of survivors? How to seek redemption while the deceased’s personal legal interest is infringed? Who is the justified claimer? Here is a review of relevant regulations, doctrine, and precedents on protection of the deceased’s reputation, and comparison of practical evolvement on both sides of strait.

Keywords: Right of personality, Reputation, Right of fame, Infringement of deceased's right of fame, The deceased's right of fam

目 次
壹、前言
貳、名譽、名譽權及其侵害
一、名譽之意義
二、名譽權
三、名譽權之侵害
參、死者名譽之保護
一、保護死者名譽之必要性
二、現行法之相關規定
（一）我國民法關於死者名譽權（或人格權）之保護
（二）保護死者名譽權（或人格權）之一般化問題
三、理論構成
（一）侵害遺族本身之名譽權說
（二）侵害遺族對於死者之敬仰愛慕感情說
（三）侵害死者之名譽權（名譽法益）說
（四）本文之見解
四、救濟方法
（一）排除侵害或防止侵害請求權
（二）損害賠償請求權
（三）回復名譽之適當處分
肆、兩岸關於保護死者名譽之實務發展
一、大陸地區之實務發展
（一）荷花女案之事實摘要
（二）最高人民法院之函示範、解答、解釋
二、我國之實務發展
（一）蔣孝嚴告陳水扁侵害蔣介石名譽案之事實摘要
（二）本案之主要爭點及判決結果
（三）臺灣台北地方法院判決之基本見解
三、綜合簡要說明
伍、結語

透過若干不同的語法表達，民法立法者也可以分配舉證責任，在制定侵權行為法亦同。推定過失責任仍然是過失責任，不宜制定一般化的危險責任規範。德國法的實踐經驗是：制定個別的危險責任規範。
民法第184條第1項前段保護的權利，限於社會典型公開性的權利，這項限制其實源自作為過失要件的預見可能性，同時也是應該差別保護利益與權利正當性基礎。違反善良風俗的要件似乎是多餘的。使重大過失不法加損害於他人者負損害賠償責任的作法，似是正當。
違法侵權責任是否有制定的必要，是否有過度保護之嫌，不無疑問。一般侵權行為法與特殊侵權行為法的法律適用關係，不應該總是只有普通法與特別法關係的選擇，而是也可以有請求權競合的選擇。主觀搭配客觀消滅時效期間，是較好的消滅時效期間的規範設計。

關鍵字：舉證責任分配、推定過失責任、危險責任、社會典型公開性、預見可能性、違法侵權責任、善良風俗、重大過失、消滅時效期間

Through a number of grammars, the civil law legislators can also allocate the burden of proof, likewise in the allocation of tort law. Presumption of negligence is still negligence. The liability of risk should not be generalized. German law practice experience: made the individual norms of liability of risk.
Civil Code Article 184, paragraph 1 only protects typical social official rights. This restriction come actually from the foresee ability. It also made the difference in protecting the interests and rights, and should be the basis of legitimacy. Violation of good customs of seems to be superfluous. Damage resulted from gross negligence, should also justifies the compensation.
Torts liability due to violation of regulation is really necessary? It should be rechecked. It should not be that general and individual tort law could only stay in the common and special relationship, but also in the competition. Subjective with the objective period of prescription, is the better norm design.

Keywords： Allocation of Burden of Proof, Presumption of Negligence, Liability of Risk, Social Official Rights, Foresee ability, Torts Liability due to Violation of Statutory Provision, Rules of Morals, Gross Negligent, Period of Prescription

目 次
壹、前言
貳、規範設計前的兩三事
一、不同的語法表達與舉證責任分配
二、推定過失責任仍然是過失責任
三、一般化的危險責任規範？
參、一般侵權行為法
一、典型社會公開性來自過失概念－差別保護的正當性基礎
二、利益的保護中重大過失應等同故意
（一） 平等正義
（二） 來回於理論與案例間
三、利益的保護無關善良風俗
四、故意與重大過失等價時不必要有違法侵權責任
肆、特殊侵權行為
一、特殊侵權作為法定類型的集合也應合乎類型論
二、一定是且應該是特別法？
（一） 特別法的適用前提
（二） 以公務員職務侵權責任為例
（三） 請求權競合比較好
伍、消滅時效
一 幾個主軸命題
二、以人格權作為期間長度的區別因素
三、主觀與客觀時效期間
陸、結論

企業併購在經濟功能上主要在於淘汰效率較差之經營者，金融市場體制愈先進之國家其併購之活動愈盛行，然由於企業併購之活動影響到股東對於股價之判斷與交易之公平、公正與公開性，因此在併購程序中屢有涉及內線交易或炒作股票價格之情事發生，惟企業併購原為企業經營活動重要之環節，更是產業提升之重要原動力之一，併購案件是否構成違反證券交易法關於內線交易及操縱市場價格禁止之規定，宜有明確之界線，政府與司法機關理應提供經營者明確遵循之標準，俾使企業有所遵行並維護政府與市場之公信力，實務上因非合意併購被認為構成違反證券交易法關於內線交易及操縱市場價格禁止之規定而移送司法檢調之案件甚多，尤其是未經申報公告及依合法進行之併購程序，其買進被併購公司股份，其是否當然構成違反證券交易法關於內線交易及操縱市場價格禁止之規定，行政機關有以違反內線交易及操縱市場價格禁止之規定移送者亦有不移送之案例，司法實務之見解亦存有歧異，因此本文擬比較分析現行實務案例之見解，從行為主體與主、客觀犯罪構成要件進一步探討，並援引美國司法實務案例之見解體提出說明，最後並以行政院函請立法院審議之證券交易法修正案為例，就所提有關安全港條款之立法草案，回顧我國現行行政與司法機關之實務規定與見解，提出可供參考之建議。

關鍵字：企業併購、非合意併購、內線交易、操縱市場價格、安全港條款、主觀犯罪構成要件、客觀犯罪構成要件

Mergers and acquisitions in the main economic function is to eliminate the less efficient enterprise operators, in the more advanced financial market system countries, the acquisition of the more popular activities, however due to mergers and acquisitions affect the activity of the shareholders to determine the share price and trading, so frequently involved in the acquisition process in insider trading or speculation in the stock price of the occurrences, for the fair and just and open ,there are many mergers and acquisitions cases and enterprises transferred to prosecutors for prosecution and investigation. but the original merger of the important aspects of business activities, is the major driving force behind industrial upgrading,one of whether M & A cases constitute a violation of the Securities Exchange Act on insider trading and price manipulation provisions of prohibition is very important,for the boundaries should to be clear, the government and the judiciary should provide the operator a clear standard to follow, thus giving the enterprises to comply with and maintain the credibility of the government and the market,in our country the government and the judiciary deal with mergers and acquisitions practice, often hold that due to non-consensual is considered to constitute a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of insider trading and price manipulation provisions prohibited ,and then many cases have transferred to judicial examination, especially unreported announcement and acquisitions carried out in accordance with legal procedures, which buy shares of the acquired company, it is possible constitute a violation of the Securities Exchange Act prohibits insider trading and market manipulation provisions of the price, the authorities has transfer the case to the judiciary because they are violation of insider trading and price manipulation provisions prohibited,However, we also found who have not transferred to the judicial practice,so there are also exist differences of opinion. this article intends to present a comparative analysis of cases of practical insights from the subjective meaning of human behavior and the main objective activities of a crime to explore further, citing the case of the United States Judicial opinions and comparative analysis the elements of crime body of judicial practice by a statement explaining,the final letter to the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan for review of the securities Exchange Act of amendment, for example, the proposed safe harbor provisions of the draft legislation, administrative and judicial review of current regulations and practice ideas, and proposed induction put forward suggestions for reference.

Key word: Mergers and Acquisitions、Hostile Takeover、Insider Trading、Manipulation、Safe Harbor Provisions、Subjective Elements of Crime、Objective Elements of Crime

目 次
壹、前言
貳、非合意併購之意義與實務運作
一、非合意併購之意義
二、非合意併購之實務運作
（一）自證券交易市場收購股份
（二）公開收購
（三）強制公開收購
參、公開收購股權與內線交易禁止
一、行為主體與內線消息
二、主觀犯罪構成要件
三、美國司法實務上之見解
四、我國證交法有關安全港條款之增訂
肆、公開收購股權與操縱市場行情
一、操縱行為之主觀犯罪構成要件
二、概括操縱條款與其他各款之適用順序
三、收購股權之行為與操縱市場之犯罪
伍、公開收購股權與操縱市場行情相關案例分析
一、以參與經營為目的而購入股票不能遽認有操縱之意圖
二、美國司法實務案例
陸、結論與建議

在我國公司法中，為了避免董事與公司間之法律行為造成公司受損之情形，而有公司法第223條之規定。類似於此規定，日本公司法第356條第1項第2款同有明文。然而，似乎所有法律行為皆在我國公司法第223條文義射程範圍內。但如此解釋卻與立法者的立法意旨相違。因此，本文以我國公司法第223條「法律行為」的解釋為核心，討論當董事與公司間為票據行為時是否有公司法第223條的適用？若承認董事與公司間的票據行為有公司法第223條適用，但監察人卻未代表公司，仍由董事長代表公司為票據行為時，通說認為其效力為無權代表，應類推適用無權代理之規定。嗣後當監察人代表公司拒絕承認時，其票據行為效力如何？該如何解釋才能兼顧符合票據交易流通之安全及本條之立法目的？對於此等問題本文擬參考日本學說對於董事與公司間票據行為於日本公司法第356條第1項第2款的解釋，進行比較法研究。最後，將利用本文所為之解釋評析最高法院在96年台上字915號有關董事與公司間之票據行為效力的判決。

關鍵字：法律行為、票據行為、利益衝突、董事、監察人、公司代表人、無權代理

In Corporate Law of Taiwan, in order to avoid the circumstance of damages caused by legal actions between directors and the company, the stipulations in Article 233 of Corporate Law come into being. Similar to this stipulation, provision 2 of section 1 of Article 356 of Corporate Law of Japan has expressly stipulated. While, it seems that all legal acts are within the “range of original text” under the article 223 of Corporate Law, but such explanation is contrary to legislative purpose of legislators. Therefore, focused on the explanation of “legal act” in the article 223 of Corporate Law, this paper discusses whether it shall apply the article 223 of Corporate Law when the act on commercial paper exists between directors and the company. If the article 223 of Corporate Law applies, but still it is the chief executive instead of supervisor represents the company to conduct act on commercial paper, the general view is that act is invalid, and it shall apply to the provision of unauthorized agent by analogy. When the supervisor refuses to admit the act on behalf of the company afterwards, what about the effect of the act on commercial paper? How can the explanation be in consideration of both the safety of paper transaction and circulation and legislative purpose of this article? For such questions, this paper is supposed to refer to Japanese theory on explanation about provision 2 of item 1 of Article 356, Corporate Law of Japan, about the act on commercial paper between directors and the company, and conduct a study of comparative law. Finally, it will analyze the judgment of the Supreme Court in No. 2007-Tai-Shang-915 about the effect of act on commercial paper between directors and the company by using the explanation of this paper.

Key words: Legal Act, Act on Commercial Paper, Conflicts of Interests, Director, Supervisor, Company Representative, Unauth- orized Agent

目 次
壹、前言
一、最高法院96年台上字第915號判決之事實及理由
（一）本案事實
（二）判決理由
二、爭點提出
貳、我國法與日本法制沿革
一、我國法制沿革
二、日本法制沿革
三、法制比較之反思
參、董事與公司間之票據行為有無公司法第223條適用
一、日本學說之介紹
（一）適用否定說
（二）適用肯定說
（三）一部適用說
二、我國法之應用
肆、票據行為違反公司法第223條，監察人拒絕承認之效果
一、日本判例及學說之介紹
（一）判例之態度
（二）學者之見解
二、我國法上之適用
（一）絕對無效說
（二）相對無效說
三、本文見解
伍、結論