環境刑法的實踐—刑法第190條之1的疑義與適用—

Abstract

科技發展與環境保護的取捨一直是人類文明進程中所必然會面對到的衝突。發展中的世界各國，在農業社會邁入現代科技發展的社會後，不可避免的都會歷經環境污染的情事。近年來，隨著環保意識的抬頭，人們對於生存環境的重視，已不再願意無限度的犧牲生態環境以換取享受科技發展的進步。也因此，現代已開發國家嘗試用法律制度，加以規範避免各式環境污染的行為，希冀在科技發展與環境保護中取得平衡點。 世界各國制定環境刑法的目的，在於遏止毫無限制的環境破壞行為，避免生態環境資源被快速破壞殆盡，以保障人類的生存。在這個目的之下，「環境」的範圍，當然僅會集中在與自然生態有關的概念上，專指變動或破壞影響人類生存的部分而言；而其他社會、經濟、文化之因素，則不在環境法規中所欲探討的範圍內。此外，環境刑法制定的理由，是為了保障人類的生存，進而使其他物種或生態環境免遭受到破壞，以達人類永續生存之目的。 我國於刑法法制上關於環境刑法的條文，規範於刑法第190條之1(即所謂流放毒物罪)，2018年修正前的條文以「污染」及「致生共共危險」作為構成要件內容，導致實務運作上，除了必須先證明投棄、放流、排出或放逸毒物或其他有害健康之物，已符合「污染結果」的標準外，還要進一步證明客觀上已經具備法益侵害的具體危險狀態存在，並證明其因果關係。亦即修正前的舊刑法條文要求必須具體證明行為人有違法排放廢氣、廢水、有害事業廢棄物等行為，究竟如何導致環境生態遭受污染或破壞之結果出現，始能於司法判決有罪，實屬困難，因而過去某些環境破壞行為者，僥倖逃過刑法制裁，造成民怨。 鑒於環境污染往往具有長期性、累積性與混同性等特色，以水污染為例，單純的排放微量廢水，能否稱得上「污染」又是否能夠「引起公共危險」，在構成要件的該當證明上，困難度極高。也因此，有了本次的修法。此次刑法第190條之1的修法方向，放寬本罪之成罪標準，採取「抽象危險犯」之立法方式，並加重對於環境破壞行為之刑罰規定，以嚴懲環境破壞行為。 然而修法之後，是否因此而能更精緻地配合環保行政法規，加以預防或防堵環境破壞行為，仍必須拭目以待。刑法修法之後最重要的核心問題在於，刪除「致生公共危險」的成罪要件後，不再呈現「具體危險犯」的犯罪性質，在規範的釋義操作中，相關「構成要件要素」應該如何合理適切的涵攝在具體案例中，才不致出現刑罰過度前置化的不合理現象，倚賴吾人對於新法要件的重新詮釋。 是以，為了避免刑罰過度前置的發動，本文認為在適用時應將行為人該當「污染」環境媒介之構成要件，定性為「具有中間結果之抽象危險犯」，亦即將條文中的「污染」定義為環境污染的結果，並搭配其行政從屬的性質，配合環保行政法之規範，作為環境污染結果之認定標準，以免刑法第190條之1處罰範圍過廣。 此外，本文接續探討修法後遭遇的困境，再針對新修正刑法第190條之1各項條文之構成要件，加以分析說明並嘗試以法律人的法理邏輯與理工人的科學技術觀點，思考最佳條文解釋適用之道。最後，再透過比較環保刑法與其他各該環境行政法的構成要件與法律效果，嘗試為目前我國司法實務與科技產業界，提出最佳適用的順序。

The balance between technological development and environmental protection has always been an issue that we inevitably face in the progress of human civilization. In recent years, with the rise of environmental protection awareness, people are unwilling to sacrifice the ecological environment unconditionally for the advancement of technological development. Therefore, modern developed countries try to use legal systems to regulate various environmental pollutions, hoping to strike a balance between technological development and environmental protection. The purpose of enacting environmental criminal laws in various countries in the world is to curb unrestricted environmental damage, to avoid rapid destruction of ecological environment resources, and to ensure human survival. Concerning this purpose, the scope of 'environment' will only focus on concepts related to natural ecology, specifically referring to changes or destruction that affect human survival; other social, economic, and cultural factors are not discussed in this essay. In addition, the enforcement of the environmental criminal law is to ensure the survival of human beings, so that it can prevent other species or the ecological environment from being destroyed, thus achieving the goal of human survival. The Article 190-1 of the Criminal Law of the Republic of China (the so-called crime of discharge of poisons) is the provision of the environmental criminal law. The provisions before the amendment in 2018 included 'pollution' and 'public danger' as constituent elements. As a result of practical operations, in addition to proving that the abandonment, release, discharge or release of poisons or other substances harmful to health has met the standards of 'polluting results', it must be further proved that there is objectively a specific dangerous state of legal interest infringement, and prove its causality. As a result, certain environmental damage culprits in the past managed to escape criminal sanctions, causing public concern. In view that environmental pollution is often long-term, cumulative, and confounding, taking water pollution as an example. Whether the mere discharge of a small amount of waste water can be called 'pollution' and whether it can 'cause public hazards'? The proof is extremely difficult, thus this revision arises. The amendment to Article 190-1 of the Criminal Law is to loosen the conviction standard of this crime, adopt the legislative method of 'abstract dangerous offender', and increase the penal provisions for environmental damage to severely punish environmental damage. However, after the law is amended, it remains to be seen whether it will be able to more closely cooperate with environmental protection administrative regulations or prevent environmental damage. The core issue after the amendment of the Criminal Law is that after the conviction element of 'causing public danger' is deleted, the criminal nature of 'specific dangerous offender' will no longer appear. In the normal interpretation operation, what should be the relevant 'constitutive elements' Reasonable and appropriate coverage in specific cases will prevent the unreasonable phenomenon of excessive penalization and rely on our reinterpretation of the new law. Therefore, in order to avoid excessive pre-deployment of penalties, this article believes that the perpetrator should be regarded as a constituent of “polluting” the environmental medium when it is applied. 'Combined with the nature of its administrative subordination, and in line with the environmental protection administrative law, the standard for determining environmental pollution gradually rises, in an effort to avoid the penalties of Article 190-1 of the Criminal Law from being too wide. In addition, this article continues to discuss the difficulties encountered after the amendment of the law, and then analyzes the constituent elements of the newly amended Article 190-1 of the Criminal Law, and tries to make the best from the legal logic of the legal person and the scientific viewpoint of the science person. The provisions explain the application of articles. Finally, by comparing the constitutional elements and legal effects of the environmental criminal law with other environmental administrative laws, we try to propose the best approach for the current judicial practice and technology industry in my country.