囤積物品及哄抬價格罪之考察

Abstract

面對缺貨與物價上漲，政府多有措施處理，禁止囤積居奇與哄抬價格的刑事規定即屬其一，即刑法第251條；在本文劃定的特殊時期中的特別規定中亦有相關法規範，如戰爭時期的特別規定、《民國八十八年九月二十五日總統緊急命令》第11條第1項及《嚴重急性呼吸道症候群防治及紓困暫行條例》第18-3條等。然而，實務操作上卻鮮少使用該等規定，不止少有起訴案例，連司法實務上亦不多見討論。 本文以為該等規定在其條文內部即可能存在解釋上的困難，致使後續難以操作，否則何以該等處罰如此前置的抽象危險犯皆未被使用。本文遂先討論各該規定的立法背景，包含當時的市場與管制強度等，並建構規範目的。接續檢視該等條文的犯罪構成要件與行為態樣，分析條文中的各式「囤積物品」行為與「哄抬價格」行為，並自「行為對價格的波動程度」、「行為對經濟秩序的損害程度」等分析建構不法內涵。 最後以量相異說作為本文分析刑事不法與行政不法的基礎，區分規定中哪些具有刑事不法，哪些僅有行政不法。區分後再分析該等條文所對應的裁罰手段是否合理，並據此重新檢視各刑事規定存在的必要，討論該等規範是否可以滿足立法者的規範目的。

In the face of shortages and price increases, the government has implemented various measures. One of these measures is the criminal provision that prohibits hoarding and price gouging, namely Article 251 of the Criminal Code. There are also relevant regulations within the special provisions outlined in this article, such as special provisions during times of war, Article 11, Section 1 of the Presidential Emergency Order issued on September 25, 1999, and Article 18-3 of the Temporary Act on the Prevention and Relief of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). However, in practice, these provisions are rarely used, with few prosecution cases and limited discussion in judicial practice. This article believes that there may be difficulties in the interpretation of these provisions within their own texts, making subsequent operations challenging. Otherwise, why would these penalties, which are so preoccupied with abstract dangerous criminals, remain unused? Therefore, this article first discusses the legislative background of these provisions, including the market conditions and regulatory intensity at that time, and establishes the normative objectives. It then examines the elements of criminal offenses and behavioral patterns in these provisions, analyzing various hoarding behaviors and price gouging behaviors described in the texts. The unlawful content is constructed by analyzing factors such as the degree of behavior's impact on price fluctuations and its damage to the economic order. Finally, the article applies the theory of qualitative differentiation as the basis for analyzing criminal illegality and administrative illegality, distinguishing which provisions involve criminal illegality and which are only administrative illegality. After this differentiation, the rationality of the penalty measures corresponding to these provisions is reexamined, and based on this, the necessity of each criminal provision is discussed, along with whether these regulations can fulfill the legislative objectives.