重新檢視我國跟蹤騷擾罪：以日本法之比較為中心

Abstract

跟蹤騷擾行為過去時常被大眾認知為一種日常生活行為，而忽視了其對被害人可能造成的深遠影響，甚至發展成重大犯罪，進一步危害被害人的身體安全。自1990年代起，跟蹤騷擾行為問題逐漸受到全球關注，並引發各國相繼立法管制。近年來，我國曾發生多起引發社會關注的重大犯罪，若將這些案件背後犯罪過程的時間點往前回溯，會發現被害人都曾遭受行為人長期間的跟蹤騷擾，也因此喚起了社會大眾對跟蹤騷擾行為問題的重視。我國乘著這股潮流，於2021年12月公布《跟蹤騷擾防制法》，並於2022年6月正式施行。而自《跟蹤騷擾防制法》施行已逾兩年，然而回顧這兩年來的實務判決，其在跟蹤騷擾罪的適用標準上仍存歧異，造成法律不安定的狀態。本文的目的在於，透過立法背景分析、實務現況探討與日本法之比較，以釐清跟蹤騷擾罪的具體內涵，並建構出符合其立法脈絡的適用標準及管制模式，避免刑罰權的恣意擴張與濫用。

本文認為，我國跟蹤騷擾罪的保護法益為防止生命、身體危險的驟升，其核心議題在於跟蹤騷擾行為逐步升級為重大犯罪的可能性。圍繞此立場，本文以日本《纏擾行為規制法》的運作經驗作為參考對象，深入探討了我國跟蹤騷擾罪的行為態樣及構成要件。本文認為於修法前，解釋「反覆或持續」要件需能夠顯示出進一步危害生命或身體的潛在危險，方能納入該當本罪之適用，此為隱藏之構成要件。另一方面，「與性或性別有關」要件解釋重點則應聚焦在「行為人是否想透過跟蹤騷擾行為與被害人『建立起某種人際關係』」。然而，現行法仍存在不足之處，須透過修法予以完善之。

本文進一步主張，應刪除「持續性」及「與性或性別有關」等要件，並新增「足生生命、身體侵害的危險」之要件，將本罪之適用標準聚焦於行為對生命、身體危險的威脅。此外，本文建議將跟蹤騷擾行為區分為嚴重型與輕微型行為，對輕微型以行政措施處理，而僅對嚴重型行為適用刑罰，從而符合跟蹤騷擾罪之規範意涵，同時避免本法淪為象徵性立法。

Stalking and harassment behaviors were often perceived by the public as part of daily life, neglecting their potential profound impact on victims, which could escalate into serious crimes, further endangering the victims' physical safety. Since the 1990s, the issue of stalking and harassment has gradually garnered global attention, prompting various countries to enact regulatory legislation. In recent years, several major crimes in our country have drawn public concern. Upon tracing the timeline of these criminal incidents, it is evident that the victims had endured prolonged stalking and harassment by the perpetrators. This realization has heightened societal awareness of the problem. Riding this wave, our country promulgated the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act in December 2021, which came into effect in June 2022. Now, over two years after the implementation of the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act, a review of practical judgments reveals discrepancies in the application standards of the crime, leading to legal instability. This article aims to clarify the concrete implications of the crime of stalking and harassment through an analysis of the legislative background, the current practical situation, and a comparative study of Japanese law. The objective is to establish application standards and regulatory models aligned with the legislative context, thereby preventing the arbitrary expansion and abuse of criminal punishment.

This article posits that the protected legal interest of the stalking and harassment crime in our country is the prevention of a sudden escalation in the danger to life and physical safety. The core issue revolves around the potential of stalking and harassment behaviors escalating into serious crimes. From this standpoint, the operational experience of Japan’s Anti-Stalking Law serves as a reference for an in-depth exploration of the behavioral patterns and constituent elements of the stalking and harassment crime in our country. The article argues that before amending the law, the interpretation of the "repeated or continuous" requirement should reflect a further potential danger to life or physical safety, qualifying the behavior under this crime—a hidden constituent element. Meanwhile, the interpretation of the requirement "related to sex or gender" should focus on whether the perpetrator seeks to "establish a certain interpersonal relationship" with the victim through stalking and harassment. However, the current law remains insufficient and requires refinement through legal amendments.

Furthermore, the article advocates for the deletion of the requirements for "continuity" and "related to sex or gender" and the introduction of a requirement for "a danger sufficient to cause harm to life or physical safety." This would refocus the application standards of the crime on the threat to life or physical safety. Additionally, the article suggests categorizing stalking and harassment behaviors into severe and minor types, handling minor types through administrative measures, and applying criminal penalties solely to severe types. This approach would align with the normative implications of the stalking and harassment crime and prevent the law from becoming merely symbolic legislation.