論虛擬貨幣的刑法管制

Abstract

自以加密技術為基礎的虛擬貨幣（Cryptocurrency）問世以來，全球各地之持有人數及規模皆不斷上升，並伴隨著以其為對象之各式侵擾的出現。然而，既有的刑事管制態度卻係在未留意到虛擬貨幣的技術特殊性下貿然地將其納入現行法射程或在借鑑他法下訂立新法；前者主要可聚焦在刑法財產犯罪以及妨害電腦使用犯罪，而後者則可見《虛擬資產服務法》草案之情形。因此，對虛擬貨幣侵擾的攻擊型態以及虛擬貨幣的本質等問題，已成為今日在分析虛擬貨幣侵擾時所必須深度探討的面向。 為了釐清虛擬貨幣侵擾的刑事管制正當性及具體規制途徑，本文將首先從技術層面著手，透過指出各種虛擬貨幣侵擾之特殊性以發覺其與現行法間的齟齬之處。再者，若認為現行法並無法妥適地回應此類侵擾行為，則關鍵問題應在虛擬貨幣的本質究竟為何，蓋此將影響在理念上是否以及如何經由刑法加以規制；此處，本文將借用若干哲學及社會學的觀點來釐清虛擬貨幣的本質，並得出虛擬貨幣在本質上可能係貨幣或財產之觀察。最後，則必須立基於上述對虛擬貨幣的觀察，具體指明那些本文整理的虛擬貨幣侵擾態樣應否及以何種方式受到刑法規制；在結論上，本文主張那些以虛擬貨幣系統為攻擊的行為態樣若係以具備貨幣特徵的虛擬貨幣為對象，則應透過立法論上所建議的妨害貨幣體制運作罪處罰，著重在破壞擁有者與虛擬貨幣之歸屬關係的行為態樣則應經由解釋論取徑而透過現行財產犯罪進行規制。

Since the advent of cryptocurrencies, the number of holders and the scale of transactions worldwide have continued to increase, accompanied by the emergence of various forms of intrusion targeting such digital units. Yet existing approaches to criminal regulation, undertaken without sufficient regard for the technical specificities of cryptocurrencies, have either hastily extended the scope of existing laws to cover them or introduced new legislation modeled on foreign frameworks. The former is primarily reflected in the application of property crimes and computer misuse offenses under the Criminal Code, while the latter is exemplified by the draft Virtual Asset Service Act. Accordingly, understanding both attack patterns and the ontological status of cryptocurrencies is essential for assessing appropriate criminal responses. To clarify both the normative legitimacy and the concrete legal pathways for criminal regulation of infringements against cryptocurrencies, this article begins with a technical analysis of intrusion patterns, exposing their misalignment with current legal frameworks. Where existing law proves insufficient, the inquiry turns to the ontological status of cryptocurrency—whether it should be treated as “money” or “property”— drawing on philosophical and sociological perspectives. Building on the foregoing conceptual analysis, the article specifies which of the previously identified intrusion patterns warrant criminal regulation, arguing that attacks on cryptocurrencies with monetary characteristics that undermine system integrity should give rise to a new offense of “undermining the monetary system,” whereas infringements on ownership interests should be addressed under existing property crime doctrines.