犯罪結社罪之可罰性基礎及解釋策略

Abstract

本文旨在嘗試為文獻上主要集中在如何有效管制的犯罪結社罪尋求一個具刑法正當性的可罰性基礎，並以此作為構成要件解釋的基本前提。本文指出關於犯罪結社罪法益的說法雖然在形式上略有差異，實質上均蘊含對潛在風險抗制的預防導向思維，並深入反省此一思維形成的社會脈絡，以及原本作為刑法正當性基礎之法益理論在其中的定位與危機。在反省主流的個人法益學說對前置化集體法益證立的缺失後，本文採取以個人自律為基礎的自由法概念，重新檢視可能作為本罪法益之諸多說法，並就其中較具開展潛力的「國家武力壟斷」觀點在本文的基礎之上，重新證立國家獨占強制權能實行權限的正當性，以「消除開啟國家程序之現實條件」為本罪不法內涵，而本罪之實質可罰性基礎，則是市民的最低協力義務。最後，本文以此觀點重構既有實證法之構成要件解釋策略，主張應以「事件關聯」為解釋原則，考慮個別要件與國家功能障礙之間的關聯性，以奠定犯罪結社罪的獨立可罰性質。

This thesis focuses on the legitimacy in criminal law of the Organized Crime Prevention Act, which has not drawn sufficient attention from the researchers compared to the perspective of effective prevention, and hence no foundation has been established to help form the strategy of interpretation based on the research result. The opinions on the incrimination legitimacy of founding/joining a criminal organization, despite the apparent difference among themselves, actually share the common basic view of “criminal law dealing with risks” and set risk prevention as the priority purpose of criminal law. By pointing out this fact, this thesis attempts to explain the social context of the emerging of this paradigm and the following crisis of “the theory of legal good,” which used to be viewed as the fundational theory to examine the legitimacy of criminal law. After the critical analysis of the “theory of personal legal good” on the issue of “pre-incrimanational collective legal good,” this thesis re-examines a variety of opinions according to the concept of law based on personal autonomy and extends the idea of “monopoly on violence” by justifying the monopoly of coercive power in the liberal idea of state. In conclusion, this thesis suggests that the incrimination of founding/joining a criminal organization could be supported by the fact that such behavior would interfere with the activation of the state’s procedure for resolving the conflict of rights, and the legitimate reason for the Act is the citizens’ joint obligation. Therefore, the interpretation of the Act should follow the principle of “incident-relation” and emphasize the interference of the state’s procedure in order to correspond with the legitimacy of the Act.