薛智仁

Chih-Jen Hsueh

通姦罪、性自主權、隱私權、法益概念、一般預防理論、刑法謙抑性、比例原則、告訴不可分、平等權

adultery, sexual autonomy, privacy, the concept of legal interests, general prevention, the principle of restraint, proportionality, complaint indivisible principle, the equal rights.

　　司法院釋字第791號解釋，以刑法第239條通姦罪限制性自主權違反比例原則，刑事訴訟法第239條但書違反平等權之保障意旨，宣告二者違憲失效，使台灣不再是世界上處罰婚外性行為的少數國家。面對兩公約內國法化後的新一波通姦除罪化論述，本號解釋延續釋字第554號之解釋路線，一方面未採納侵害隱私權與平等權之憲法主張，另一方面亦未完全採納違反法益理論和欠缺刑罰必要性之刑法觀點。本文嘗試在刑法規範之憲法審查架構底下，比較分析這些相異的論述策略，對本號解釋之論證提出批判性檢討，並期待此一檢討結果，可以作為將來建立刑法規範憲法審查架構的起點。

　　Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 791(hereinafter, J.Y. I. No.791) declares Article 239 of the Criminal Code(the crime of adultery) has restrained the sexual autonomy, and violates proportionality; the proviso of Article 239 also violates the protection of equal rights. Therefore the aforementioned provisions are unconstitutional. Taiwan has become one of the few countries in the world which do not punish extramarital sex. After “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”(ICCPR) and “The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (ICESCR) had domestic legal status in Taiwan, a new trend of advocating decriminalized adultery has raised. Facing these advocacies, the Justices of Judicial Yuan sustained the discussion of J. Y. I. No. 554. The Justices did not adopt the constitutional proposition, which considers Article 239 violated the people’s privacy and equal rights in J.Y. I. No.791. However, neither did they review Article 239 solely from the stand of criminal law, that is, the adultery infringed legal interest and lacked the punishment necessity. This study aimed to analyze these different discussions under the constitutional review structure with criminal law and propose critical arguments about .Y. I. No.791. Hoping this study may be a starting point to build the constitutional review framework with criminal law.