論我國非法清理廢棄物罪法定刑度之妥適性 ——以判決援引刑法第59條之實證研究為核心

Abstract

產業發展帶來了經濟蓬勃，但廢棄物問題也隨之而來，使得《廢棄物清理法》在實務上佔有一席之地。其中第46條集結了六款可能造成重大污染之不當處置廢棄物行為，但其構成要件無論是行為主體、客體、行為態樣等皆不同，卻未區分犯罪情節輕重，一律處以1年以上5年以下有期徒刑，當中又以第4款「非法清理廢棄物罪」在實務上的運用最為廣泛。本罪僅以行政義務的違反作為唯一的構成要件，未要求結果或訂定任何限縮的要件，導致許多對於環境污染輕微甚至根本不會造成污染的個案被涵蓋在內，並處以至少1年以上有期徒刑，難免感到情輕法重，而有違反罪刑相當原則之疑慮。 為檢驗非法清理廢棄物罪之法定刑度是否符合罪刑相當原則，本文分別從實證研究及規範論證兩方面進行探討。首先透過實證研究發現本罪在量刑的實務上存在著廣泛援引刑法第59條酌減被告刑期的特殊現象，且法官對於是否援引刑法第59條的標準並不一致；接著回到核心的規範論證，首先確認非法清理廢棄物罪之保護法益為何，而後透過檢驗罪刑相當原則之兩個分析角度：「相對均衡」及「絕對均衡」，分別將非法清理廢棄物罪與相同保護法益的其他規範進行比例性之比較，以及於個案中檢視其所獲之刑罰是否與其對法益侵害之程度相稱。 最終本文得到非法清理廢棄物罪之法定刑度不符合罪刑相當原則之結論，並提出降低法定刑度及調整構成要件之修法建議，除了解決實務浮濫援引刑法第59條之窘境，亦更符合環境法益保護之意旨。

The industrial development has brought economic prosperity but also waste disposal issues, making the Waste Disposal Act significant in practice. Article 46 lists six improper waste disposal behaviors that can cause significant pollution, uniformly punished with 1 to 5 years of imprisonment without considering the severity of the crime. Among them, the Waste Disposal Crime under Article 46(4) is most frequently applied. This crime is solely based on the violation of administrative obligations without requiring any result, leading to cases with minor or no pollution being punished with at least one year of imprisonment, raising concerns of violating the principle of the consistency between the crime and the penalty. To examine whether the statutory penalties for Waste Disposal Crime align with the principle of the consistency between the crime and the penalty, this paper explores both empirical research and normative arguments. Empirical research shows frequent discretionary sentence reductions under Article 59 of the Criminal Law, with inconsistent standards among judges. Normative analysis identifies the legal interests protected by the Waste Disposal Crime and evaluates the penalties through "relative equity" and "absolute equity" perspectives. It compares the penalties for Waste Disposal Crime with other regulations protecting similar interests and assesses whether the punishments match the degree of harm in individual cases. Ultimately, this paper concludes that the statutory penalties for Waste Disposal Crime do not meet the principle of the consistency between the crime and the penalty. This paper suggests lowering the statutory penalties and adjusting the offense elements to resolve the excessive reliance on Article 59 and better align with environmental protection goals.