輔仁法學第46期

在刑事法領域中，法人是否有犯罪能力，素有爭議。隨著經濟發展，企業作為組織體，在各個法領域中，諸如食品藥物領域、生態環境領域、金融資本市場領域等，企業活動造成侵害民眾利益的情形，亦愈見頻繁。本文以下將分為三大部分，對法人犯罪問題進行探討。第一部分，指出法人作為犯罪主體所面臨的問題，在現代刑法以「自由意志」為前提的責任基礎下，法人是否有犯罪能力，進而受到刑事制裁？此一部分將針對我國關於法人犯罪的相關學說見解與實務判決，進行分析檢討。第二部分，介紹德國與法國法人刑事責任之立法趨向，就德國法制部分，尤其針對「組織缺陷」理論與法人之「社會責任」加以探討，並分析德國法人刑事責任的發展；就法國法制部分，則介紹法國刑法就法人刑事責任的修法情形。最後，本文嘗試以「組織缺陷」理論，做為建構法人刑事責任的理論基礎，並建議採取兩罰模式，以及擴大對法人處罰之刑罰制裁種類，以達到預防法人犯罪之目的。

關鍵字：法人、犯罪主體、刑事責任、組織缺陷、轉嫁理論

In the field of criminal law, whether a corporate is able to commit a crime has been controversial. With the development of economy, corporates, as an organizational body, whose invasion of the interests of generable public caused by violation of various laws, such as economic criminal law and environmental criminal law, has also been found frequently. This study is organized into 3 parts to investigate this issue. Part 1 indicates the problems faced by corporations as the subject of offense. In modern criminal laws where the liability basis is “free will,” are corporations able to commit crimes and thus be subject to criminal penalties? Part 2 refers to the legislative trend of various countries in the European Union, and introduces the amendments to laws concerning corporate criminal liability in criminal law in France, as well as the development of criminal liability of criminals in Germany. The theories of “organizational fault” and “social responsibility” will be particularly introduced. In the end, this study intends to use theories of “organizational fault” as the theoretical basis to establish the corporate criminal liability, as well as to make suggestions on expansion of types of criminal penalties, to achieve the objective of prevention of corporate crime.

Keywords: Corporation, Criminal Subject, Criminal Liability, Organizational Fault , Respondeat Superior

目 次
壹、從食品安全談法人刑事責任
貳、法人得否負刑事責任？
一、法人無犯罪能力原則
二、我國刑法學說與實務判決對法人刑事責任之看法
參、德法兩國法人刑事責任之發展
一、德國情形
（一）傳統見解
（二）法人犯罪處罰模式之發展
二、法國情形
肆、結語──對法人處罰模式的建議

雖刑事訴訟法第159條之1至第159條之5等規定，明文傳聞例外之類型，然因傳聞法則於我國法制毫無歷史根源，關於如何於刑事司法實務上適用傳聞例外，不免有賴比較法之借鏡；特別在我國刑事訴訟法僅設有五類傳聞例外之法制架構下，究應如何判斷傳聞陳述之證據能力，其背後之法理為何，更值得探討。鑑於國際往來之頻繁，跨境犯罪層出不窮，如何於人權保障與打擊犯罪間求得衡平，自應對境外陳述（外國文書）之證據能力詳加辨明，以期毋枉毋縱，兼顧犯罪被害人權利保障。

關鍵字：境外文書、傳聞例外、對質、驗證、公開檢查

Although Articles 159-1 to 150-5 of the ROC Criminal Procedure Code provide hearsay exceptions, it is critical to conduct comparative studies of hearsay rule so that the local practice in Taiwan would go better. Furthermore, how to admit foreign documents in criminal process becomes more and more important not only for transnational crimes increase but also for human rights protection.

Keywords: Foreign Document, Hearsay Exception, Confrontation, Authentication, Public Inspection

目 次
壹、前言
貳、我國實務立場
一、職權主義傳統觀點
二、以傳聞例外為中心之轉向
三、小結
參、美國法制發展
一、憲法第四條完全之信賴與尊重條款
二、憲法第六修正案之對質條款
三、聯邦證據法
四、聯邦刑事法典
肆、比較分析
一、陳述不能
二、文書類型
三、取證程序
伍、結論

通姦成文法之立法目的，無非在於婚姻關係之維護及家庭之保護上，惟此法律只奠基於「道德」或「宗教信仰」。國內向來對於通姦罪之刑事處罰，均以比例原則為基礎，惟本文自另一層面──即自憲法隱私權與個人自主之角度切入，提供不同面向之探討，並藉由美國Oliverson v. West Valley City及Lawrence v. Texas二則案例之探究及分析，用以詮釋、印證通姦罪之刑事處罰，無論在美國或臺灣，均有違憲疑慮，應予以除罪化。亦即，倘通姦成文法與隱私權與個人自主之憲法價值相互權衡，其實經不起檢驗──私生活之隱私自主決定權之選擇，應獲得尊重，立法者實在不應藉由將通姦行為入罪化之方式，試圖操控個人命運及其性慾望。換言之，關於私人合意下之通相姦行為，法律並不具有任何重大迫切之政府利益，足以正當化其窺視並介入當事人之私生活領域。

關鍵字：通姦、隱私、自主、正當法律程序、比例原則、重大迫切利益、實質利益、正當利益、道德錯誤、除罪化

The legislative purpose of adultery statute law is the maintenance of marital relationship and protection of family, but this law is the reason only based on the moral or religion. Regarding the punishment of adultery, Critical discussion of domestic scholars in the past is usually centred on the principle of proportionality. However, this article intends to another level－focus on the privacy rights and personal autonomy, to discussion of different aspects.
And by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision─Oliverson v. The West Valley City and Lawrence v. Texas two cases to explore and analyze, and for interpret and prove that adultery's criminal penalties, both in the United States and Taiwan, are unconstitutional doubts should be decriminalization. That is, if adultery statute law compared with constitutional values privacy and personal autonomy, in fact, it should not withstand constitutional scrutiny─privacy rights and personal autonomy should be respected.
The government cannot control people's destiny and sexual desire by making their private sexual conduct a crime─adultery. Their privacy rights and personal autonomy under the Due Process Clause gives people the full rights to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. In other words, law does not have any compelling government interest to justify its spy and involved parties on private consensual adultery behavior.

Keywords: Adultery, Privacy, Autonomy, Due Process of Law, Principle of Proportionality, Compelling Interest, Substantial Interest, Legitimate Interest, Morally Wrong, Decriminalization

目 次
壹、前言
貳、Oliverson v. West Valley City案
一、案例介紹
二、案例評析
（一）多數主流民意不認為通姦行為構成刑事犯罪
（二）猶他州通姦罪之由來及輕罪趨勢
（三）其他相對保守州之通姦罪成文法
（四）通姦行為之刑事制裁具正當性？
（五）通姦行為涉及隱私權與個人自主之憲法保障
三、小結
參、Lawrence v. Texas案
一、案例介紹
二、案例評析
（一）通姦罪存在目的得僅在道德讉責層面？
（二）隱私權與個人自主之保障範圍不及於通姦行為？
（三）借引Lawrence案析論通姦罪處罰之違憲疑義
三、小結
肆、我國通姦罪之合憲性檢驗──牴觸隱私權與個人自主之憲法保障
一、隱私權與個人自主之權利，在我國亦具憲法保障位階
二、我國刑法處罰通姦行為，有違憲疑義而應予除罪化
（一）我國通姦罪簡析
（二）借引美國Oliverson及Lawrence案評通姦罪違憲
（三）通姦除罪化呼籲
伍、結論

現代保險之目的，已從單純的損失填補轉化為對於被保險人財務安全與心境安寧之保障，欲達到此目的，則在危險事故發生後，保險人對於被保險人請求保險給付時，應予以妥善之處理。保險為最大誠信契約，契約雙方當事人於履行保險契約之時，不得為取得契約上之利益而做出有害他方當事人之行為。在被保險人提出理賠時，多處於財務上之弱勢地位，保險人能否妥善處理，關乎被保險人既有之事業能否儘速恢復而免於倒閉及對受害第三人之責任能否控制在一定範圍內。所以，被保險人向保險人告知賠案發生時，秉持誠信善意原則之保險人，為被保險人處理所遭遇之損失與面臨第三人之責任關係訴訟，應如同處理自己事務一般，如此，保險始能依被保險人之期待，真正發揮其保障被保險人心境安寧並具社會安定之功能。
美國為全球保險最為發達的國家之一，各州法院於近百年間已將學者發展之相關理論，作為判決基礎而實際運用於司法實務中，並藉以建構保險契約當事人間義務之法律內涵；保險人亦對法院所採之見解對相關行為及契約條款作出調整，使其符合法令之內涵。本文以美國法制發展為立論重心，探討保險人處理賠案義務之性質、內涵、最新發展與改革。最後，剖析我國現況與缺失，參酌美國學說與實務見解，提出相關建建議，期能成為立法機關與相關單位之參考。

關鍵字：第一人保險、第三人保險、誠信善意與公平交易默示協定、信賴義務、處理賠案義務、調查義務、惡意行為、惡意侵權行為請求權

The purpose of modern insurance is transformed from indemnification against actual out-of-pocket loss to providing the insured with financial security and peace of mind. In order to achieve the aforesaid purpose, the insurer should appropriately process the claims submitted by the insured after the loss occurred. Insurance contract is contract of good faith and neither of the contractual parties should not do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement when they implement the contract. The insured is vulnerable in finance when the claim is submitted and the claim-handling by the insurer is related to that if the insured’s business can recover from the suffering and prevent from being into bankruptcy and the liability to the injured third party can be limited to some level。Thus, when the insured gives the notice of claims to the insurer, the latter should give the former’s interests consideration equal to its own in the process of handling the claim. As a result, insurer can bring the peace of mind to the insured as the latter’s expectation and achieve the function of social stability.
The United State is one of the blooming markets in the world and the state courts have adjudged the insurance case based on the scholar’s theories in the recent hundred years and established the legal contents of the contractual parties’ duties. Afterwards, the insurer revises the related provisions in the insurance contract and adjusts the conducts to conform to the regulations in accordance with the court’s opinions. This paper will focus on the development in the United States, to examine the characteristics, contents, the latest development and reform relevant to the insurer’s duty to process the claims. In conclusion, this paper will analyze the current legislative conditions and policy clauses in Taiwan and presents the suggestions for legislation and amendments in Taiwan's policy clause with references to the regulations and judicial precedents in the United States.

Keywords: First-Party Insurance, Third-Party Insurance, Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Fiduciary Duty, Duty to Process the Claims, Duty to Investigate, Bad Faith, Bad Faith Tort Cause of Action

目 次
壹、前言
貳、保險人處理賠案義務之發展
一、義務來源
（一）契約
（二）法律原則
二、義務性質
三、處理賠案義務之主要內涵
（一）調查義務
（二）補償義務
（三）和解義務
參、違反處理賠案義務之責任
一、傳統契約法之觀點
二、新請求權誕生
（一）惡意侵權行為請求權之發展
（二）違反義務之判斷標準
（三）損害賠償之範圍
（四）小結──美國各州之現況
三、學者對惡意行為法之改革意見
（一）惡意侵權行為適用範圍之限制
（二）允許保險人得主張減免責任抗辯
四、評析
肆、我國現況之分析與建議
一、我國現況分析
（一）義務來源
（二）法律效果
二、建議
（一）修正方向
（二）修正條文
伍、結論
附錄

我國於2003年修正民事訴訟法時，於第67條之1增訂法院得依職權通知法律上利害關係第三人之規定。法院通知後具有輔助參加利益之第三人不參加訴訟，立法者認為於其與被輔助之當事人之間可發生參加效，如此之效力為舊法所無。此種情形於他造當事人與受通知之第三人間可否發生既判力與爭點效，於學說上則產生重大之爭論。2003年新法修正後，第63條第1項本文之規定，其究僅係參加人與被輔助當事人間發生參加效之根據規定，抑或可進一步作為他造當事人與參加人之間發生既判力與爭點效之根據規定，亦有其疑問之處。與67條之1法院職權通知之規定相配合，立法者尚於第57條之1以下增訂第三人撤銷訴訟程序，以供法律上利害關係第三人因不可歸責於己之事由未參加訴訟，致不能提出足以影響判決結果之攻擊或防禦方法之情形，得以兩造為共同被告對該確定之終局判決提起撤銷之訴，請求撤銷對其不利之部分。關於此項確定判決後救濟程序之增訂與訴訟參加、訴訟告知、法院職權通知，及再審之訴之關係如何，其原告、被告適格及其判決之效力之決定是否妥適，凡此均有作更深入研究之必要。基此，本文從比較法之觀點先探討訴訟參加、訴訟告知與法院職權通知相關之問題，其次再研究第三人撤銷訴訟程序之相關議題。本文之目的乃在釐清訴訟參加、訴訟告知與法院職權通知之要件與效力，及其與既判力及爭點效之關係，並確立確定判決前參加方面之聽審請求權保障規範及聽審請求權受侵害之確定判決後救濟程序。

關鍵字：訴訟參加、訴訟告知、法院職權通知、既判力、第三人撤銷訴訟程序

The written notice of court hearing has been added in 2003 in article 67-1 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. If the third person doesn’t attend the proceedings after the notice, the legislator regulates the effect of the intervention between the supported party and the noticed third person. Furthermore, this amendment raises the following important academic issues, whether res judicata and issue preclusion after the notice by court can occur between the another party and the intervener and whether article 63 can be regarded as a fundamental provision of above effect. The new proceeding, Third-Person Opposition Proceeding, is in the Innovation of 2003 introduced into the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. In cases where a third person who is legally interested in an action and didn’t attend the proceedings due to reasons not imputable to himself , such third person may bring an opposition action against that final and binding judgment to seek the revocation of the portion of such judgment prejudicial to him. It is necessary to make the detailed study, whether the standings of plaintiff and defendant in the third person opposition proceedings are adequate. The aim of the essay is to clarify the requirements and effects of intervention, notice of action, notice of court hearing and the relation between them and res judicata as well as issue preclusion and further to establish the provision of notice of court, which protects the third person’s right to a court hearing, and the proper remedial procedure against the infringement of the above right.

Keywords: Intervention, Notice of Action , Notice of Court Hearing, Res Judicata, Third-Person Opposition Proceeding

目 次
壹、前言
貳、訴訟參加
一、輔助參加
（一）輔助參加之理由──具有法律上之利益
（二）輔助參加人之法律地位
（三）參加效
二、共同訴訟輔助參加
（一）意義
（二）共同訴訟輔助參加之前提要件
（三）共同訴訟輔助參加人之法律地位
（四）參加效與既判力
參、訴訟告知與法院之職權通知
一、訴訟告知
（一）訴訟告知之前提要件
（二）訴訟告知之效力
二、法院之職權通知
（一）我國新法第67條之1之法院得依職權通知規定
（二）實務見解
（三）學說見解
（四）本文見解
三、確定判決前訴訟參與方面聽審請求權保障規範之明確化與完整化──法院應通知一般性規定之增訂
（以上登載於上期；以下登載於本期）
肆、第三人撤銷訴訟程序
一、我國第三人撤銷訴訟程序
（一）第三人撤銷訴訟之立法目的、要件及效力
（二）我國學說上對於第三人撤銷訴訟程序之評價
（三）實務見解
二、德國民事訴訟法上第三人參加方面聽審請求權受侵害之事後救濟程序
（一）於侵害參加方面聽審請求權之情形得提起再審之訴或聽審之異議
（二）受既判力擴張之人始得因侵害其參加方面聽審請求權提起再審之訴或聽審之異議
（三）得提起再審之訴或聽審異議之主體不限於曾參與訴訟之當事人或參加人
三、法國第三人撤銷訴訟程序
四、對我國第三人撤銷訴訟程序之淺見
伍、結論