論盜伐林木犯罪中職業司機擔任運輸角色之處罰

Abstract

盜伐林木犯罪為長期存在於臺灣之問題，民國101年間，位於宜蘭大同鄉的南山神木群遭盜伐集團大規模盜伐，此事件震驚社會大眾，稱為「南山神木盜伐案」，此事件促使立法院於民國104年大幅修正森林法盜伐林木犯罪之法定刑度，修法前，盜伐林木犯罪宣告刑度多為1年以下有期徒刑，且近半數為6個月以下有期徒刑，修法後，盜伐林木犯罪宣告刑度大幅增加至1到2年。民國104年之修法加入絕對沒收之規定，不論犯罪工具屬於何人，皆可沒收，租賃小客車之車行為免其車輛遭使用作為犯罪工具，對於租車者之審查越趨嚴格，盜伐集團原本常使用租賃之小客車作為犯罪工具，即使該車輛被沒收也無妨，不會增加犯罪成本，但於民國104年修法後，盜伐集團難以再利用租賃車輛作為運輸工具，盜伐集團似乎轉而誘騙、吸收計程車司機或白牌車司機加入犯罪集團擔任運輸角色，如此，盜伐集團則無須負擔車輛之犯罪成本。

隨著立法者對盜伐林木犯罪之態度趨嚴，司法體系也因立法者強烈打擊此類犯罪之意圖，傾向於寬泛地將這些司機視為竊取森林主副產物罪之共同正犯，在森林法針對盜伐林木犯罪重刑化及沒收的規定下，這些司機一旦涉入盜伐林木犯罪，所付出之代價極大。

上述現象使筆者欲深入探討這些職業小客車司機擔任盜伐林木犯罪運輸角色究竟是否應認定為共同正犯？首先，本文考察實務判決，發現實務判決大多以職業小客車司機單向知悉其他行為人之犯罪計畫，便認定與其他行為人具犯意聯絡，亦即，認為具備單獨正犯之「故意」即表示具備共同正犯之「犯意聯絡」，此與共同正犯須具備相互為用之共同性要求相違背，此外，實務判決認定職業小客車司機之理由亦有不充分之處，例如，實務判決經常以職業小客車司機於夜半、人煙稀少之山區載運乘客，以此認定職業小客車知悉其他行為人之犯罪計畫，具備犯意聯絡，然而，在職業小客車司機執業過程中，乘客於深夜、人煙稀少之處叫車並非顯見，實務判決以此理由認定職業小客車司機知悉乘客之犯罪計畫，過於牽強。

因此，本文自實務見解與學說見解釐清共同正犯之要件，並以此檢視現今實務判決針對職業小客車司機擔任盜伐林木犯罪運輸角色之法律評價。本文首先爬梳實務見解，發現實務見解之所以會將行為人單向知悉犯罪計畫，便認定具備犯意聯絡，主要是因實務見解採用「犯意聯絡」用語作為共同正犯主觀要件，無法體現共同性之要求，導致實務見解大多省略共同性之審酌。此外，實務見解採用主客觀標準擇一說，亦導致部分實務見解僅偏重審酌主觀或客觀要件，在盜伐林木案件中，職業小客車司機載運乘客即具備客觀行為分擔，部分實務見解便以寬鬆方式認定司機之主觀犯意。 接著，本文透過分析實務及學說見解，析出共同正犯成立要件，並著重探討共同正犯之主觀內涵為何，檢視現今實務判決，本文認為，單獨正犯之「故意」不等同於共同正犯之「犯意聯絡」，共同正犯除須具備犯罪行為之知與欲以外，還須具備其他行為人相互利用之意思，否則無法解釋為何共同正犯之行為人未完成所有構成要件，卻須承擔整個犯罪之全部責任，本文期許實務能重新審視對於盜伐林木犯罪共同正犯之寬鬆解釋，希冀本論文能對實務評價盜伐林木犯罪之處罰提供些許貢獻。

Illegal logging has long been a significant issue in Taiwan. In 2012, the Nan Shan Sacred Tree Group in Datong Township, Yilan County, fell victim to a large-scale illegal logging operation, known as the "Nan Shan Sacred Tree Logging Case," which shocked the public. This event prompted the Legislative Yuan to substantially amend the penalties for illegal logging under the Forestry Law in 2015. Prior to the amendment, penalties for illegal logging typically resulted in less than one year of imprisonment, with nearly half of the cases resulting in sentences of less than six months. Post-amendment, penalties for illegal logging increased significantly to one to two years of imprisonment. The 2015 amendment also introduced provisions for absolute confiscation, allowing for the confiscation of vehicles regardless of ownership. Previously, criminal groups often used leased minibuses as tools for their crimes, making confiscation inconsequential to their operational costs. However, following the amendment, criminal groups found it difficult to utilize leased vehicles, prompting them to recruit taxi or unlicensed drivers to transport their illegal goods. Thus, criminal groups avoided bearing the cost of vehicle confiscation. As legislative measures against illegal logging became stricter, the judiciary increasingly treated these drivers as accomplices to the crime of stealing forest products. Under the heightened penalties and confiscation provisions of the Forestry Law, these drivers faced significant consequences if implicated in illegal logging. This paper aims to delve into whether professional minibus drivers involved in transporting illegally logged timber should be considered accomplices to the crime. Firstly, the study examines practical judicial decisions, finding that they often attribute criminal intent to drivers who were merely aware of other perpetrators' plans, thereby establishing a culpable mental state connection. This approach conflicts with the requirement for mutual use inherent in joint perpetration. Moreover, judicial decisions frequently find insufficient grounds for considering professional minibus drivers complicit, such as assuming drivers knowingly participated in criminal activities simply because they operated in remote areas late at night, where passenger requests are not uncommon but not necessarily suspicious. Such reasoning stretches the boundaries of liability. Therefore, this paper clarifies the elements of joint perpetration based on practical and theoretical perspectives and scrutinizes the legal evaluation of professional minibus drivers' roles in illegal logging cases. By analyzing practical and theoretical insights, this paper argues that intent for joint perpetration requires more than mere knowledge and intent to commit the crime; it necessitates mutual exploitation among co-perpetrators. The paper urges a reconsideration of lenient interpretations of joint perpetration in illegal logging cases and aims to contribute to practical assessments of penalties for illegal logging in legal discourse.