| 關 鍵 詞： |
陸海空軍刑法；言論自由；妨害名譽罪；虛偽訊息；匿名訊息 |
| 中文摘要： |
軍人亦屬國民之組成分子，自當享有憲法第 16 條所保障之請願、訴願及訴訟等救濟權利，為使部屬有循合法、正當管道表達意見，主張權利，或提出申辯之機會，並使長官給予部屬享有毫無阻礙之平抑機會，以促進團結。是故，陸海空軍刑法於 2001 年修正時，於第 46 條針對「阻擾部屬申訴罪」，特訂有罰則。然而為避免部屬濫用權利匿名檢舉，不當影響其長官之陞遷等，亦應予以處罰，故於同法第 73 條訂有「匿名或冒名發送虛偽訊息罪」相互呼應。然而，自臺灣高等法院高雄分院 98 年度軍上字第 17 號判決之後，實務類案均參考系爭判決意旨或為無罪判決或不起訴處分。本文從解構陸海空軍刑法第 73 條之保護法益及構成要件出發，說明本法及刑法誹謗罪之差異，以及本條第 1 項在司法院釋字 509 號之適用下，遭到實務運用而過度限縮，有違立法本旨而造成「無案可判」之現況，冀本法之相關問題得以獲得解決。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
The Criminal Code of the Armed Forces；Freedom of Speech；Offenses Against Reputation；Fake Information；Anonymous Information |
| 英文摘要： |
The Criminal Code of the Armed Forces Article 73, paragraph 1：A person who intends to influence a person who has the power to appoint, propose, deliberate, ratify the decision of appointment, promoting, degradation and sends fake information which is disadvantageous to others anonymously shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year, detention, or a fine of not more than 100,000 yuan. However, since Taiwan High Court KaohsiungB ranch Court (98) Jiunshang No. 17, many Courts is based on the judgment of the dispute, the verdict is not guilty. This paper aims to discuss the relevant issues of the law with respect to human rights in military under Article 73, through the legislative process, literature review and other methods to show that the element of the crime is different with criminal law Article 310 (A person who points out or disseminates a fact which will injure the reputation of another for purpose that it be communicated to the pubic commits the offense of slander).
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、案例
一、事實摘要
二、判決理由摘要
三、爭點
參、匿名或冒名發送虛偽訊息罪之解構
一、保護法益
二、構成要件
三、小結
肆、刑法誹謗罪與匿名或冒名發送虛偽訊息罪之比較
一、刑法誹謗罪
二、釋字 509 號之適用
三、小結
伍、本案判決評析
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|