論文書犯罪的非難重心——以行使罪名的不法內涵之釐清為中心

Abstract

本文研究目的在於完整理解文書犯罪中的行使罪名之不法內涵。在文書犯罪的各規定中，行使罪名距離法益侵害最為接近而應為評價重點，但從既有文獻討論的篇幅與內容觀之，相關探討的份量卻遠不及偽造罪名，行使要件的內涵因而顯得空洞。為釐清既有討論相對欠缺關注的問題，本文乃聚焦探討行使罪名，自既有的討論脈絡延伸，在現行法的規範體系之下釐清行使罪名相關的解釋、適用問題。 本文認為，文書犯罪的規範本旨是保護人們在多元生活中「使用文書」的事實，保護法益為「文書制度」，且本文採取以「保證功能」為核心的「文書制度」立場，具體內涵應由使用不同文書的規範基礎加以填充，其等皆與「保證功能」緊密連結。依本文見解，行使的完整定義是：將文書用於「通常用途」（能讓名義人經由文書表示擔保的事項實際發揮作用的使用方式，亦即，使人以為名義人擔保某些事項，而能讓思想表示在生活中體現一定意義）；加以，不能完全控制文書內容不會進入不知情文書經過偽造的他人之視野，具有「用途」與「程度」雙重要求。 而在行使罪名與其他罪名的競合關係判斷，首先是行使罪名與偽造罪名，二者係屬危險犯之於實害犯的補充關係，不論客體是貨幣或一般文書皆然，基本上皆應以行使罪名作為主要適用罪名而以行使罪名評價。不過，在偽造貨幣的討論脈絡，偽造犯行的客體數量可能大於行使犯行，在此種情形即不應適用補充關係，應論以數罪併罰。接續關於行使罪名與文書犯罪以外其他罪名的競合關係判斷，重點在於正確理解文書犯罪非難重心不同於其他罪名，當一行為觸犯行使罪名與其他罪名應論以想像競合。

The purpose of this study is to comprehensively understand the unlawful nature of the offense of “uttering” in the context of document-related crimes. Among the various provisions in document-related crimes, the offense of uttering is the most closely related to the harm of legal interests and should therefore be the focal point for evaluation. However, based on the scope and content of discussions in existing literature, the exploration of this offense is notably less thorough compared to the offense of forgery, with the elements of the offense of uttering remaining under-theorized. To address the relative lack of attention in existing discussions, this study specifically examines the offense of uttering, extending from existing discussions, with the aim of clarifying the relevant interpretations and applications of this offense under the current legal framework. This study contends that the normative purpose of the legal provisions governing document-related crimes is to protect the factual use of legal documents in diverse contexts of life, and the legal interest being protected is the “Institution of legal document.” In this regard, this study adopts the perspective of the “Institution of legal document” centered on the “Authentication function” which the specific contents are filled in based on the normative foundations of using different documents, all of which are closely linked to this “Authentication function.” According to this view, the complete definition of the offense of uttering is as follows: it involves the use of a document for its “usual purpose”(a usage that enables the matters guaranteed by the document to actually take effect for the nominal party, such that others are led to believe that the nominal party has made a guarantee, thus allowing the expression of thoughts to manifest meaningful implications in real life); additionally, this offense requires that the user cannot fully control the document's content from entering the field of vision of others who are unaware the document has been forged. The offense therefore entails dual requirements of “purpose” and “degree of exposure.” Regarding the concurrence of the offense of uttering with other offenses, the first issue to address is the relationship between the offense of uttering and the offense of forgery. These two offenses are supplementary in nature—one being a crime of danger and the other being a crime of harm. Whether the object is currency or general documents, the offense of uttering should generally be the primary charge, with its application taking precedence in legal evaluations. However, in the context of the forgery of currency, since the quantity of forged items involved in the forgery offense may exceed the quantity of items involved in the offense of uttering, the supplementary relationship should not apply in such cases, and the issue should be treated as “Combined Punishment for Several Offenses.” Regarding the concurrence of the uttering with offenses other than document-related offenses, the key lies in correctly understanding that the focus of blameworthiness for document-related crimes differs from other crimes. When an act violates both the uttering offense and other offenses, it should be treated as “ideal concurrence.”