許恒達

Heng-Da Hsu

聚合犯、妨害秩序、適性犯、安全感、集會自由

Konvergenzdelikt, Interference with Public Order, Eignungsdelikt, Psychological Safety, Freedom of Assembly

立法院修正刑法第149條與第150條之聚眾妨害秩序罪，修正後在實務上出現了用以處罰打群架案例的發展傾向，若干法院見解更採取嚴格的限縮方法予以解釋適用，從而使這兩則罪名的處罰範圍極難判定，構成要件也不易解釋。本文從保護法益立場，認為這兩則條文並非保護公眾安全感，而是以不特定多數人的人身安全作為保護主軸，立法上則可設計具體適性判斷指標，用以判定有無此項危險，並在此基礎上，設法提出限縮解釋兩條文構成要件的具體建議，包括將本罪之法益限定為社會客觀秩序，不法非難內涵則理解為三人以上之群眾在公眾場所施強暴脅迫，從而可能帶來不特定受到攻擊的激化危險性，期能為實務發展提供可行方向。

Since the amendment of Art. 149 and 150 of the Criminal Code regarding illegal assembly and interference with public order, these articles tend to be used against crime of affray in practice. Furthermore, strict limits were interpreted and applied in several court decisions, making the scope of punishment and actus reus of the mentioned articles hard to determine. In this article, the author aims to further the discussion from the perspective of legal interests, which demonstrate that the primary purpose of Articles 149 and 150 is to protect personal safety of an unspecified number of people, instead of psychological safety of the general public. This article thus hopes to provide a viable approach in legal practices by suggesting the application of specific elements of adequateness to confirm the existence of danger, and, on the basis of it, attempts to propose a specific suggestion of how to limit the actus reus of the two articles.