以宗教之名行騙性交是否構成強制性交罪？─兼論臺灣高等法院臺南分院 99 年度重上更（二）字第 78 號刑事判決暨最高法院 99 年度臺上字第 8139 號刑事判決 Does Sexual Intercourse Obtained by Religious Deception Constitute Rape?－Comments on the Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court Criminal Judgment 99-Zhong-Shang-Geng-2-78 and the Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 99-Tai-Shang-8139
- 發布日期：
- 最後更新日期：109-06-05
- 資料點閱次數：177
● 中文摘要：
在刑法上，「同意」係指，「法益持有人」對其「財產法益」、「名譽法益」、「自由法益」所為的「處分行為」。而「同意」與「同意的動機」係屬兩種不同層次的概念，「同意」的「動機錯誤」並不影響「同意」的效力。以「強制性交構成要件」為例，只要具有「法益持有人」「有效」處分其「性自主」「自由法益」的「阻卻強制性交構成要件同意」，行為人即非屬「違反其意願」而與之性交。再者，作為強制性交的方法，刑法第 221 條第 1 項所謂「其他違反其意願之方法」除應解為「以其他方法違反其意願」之外，亦應限於具有類似強暴、脅迫、恐嚇、催眠術等「強制力」的行為。是故，「詐術性交」除現行刑法第 229 條有其處罰規定之外，於方法上因不具有「強制力」，而非屬強制性交的問題。
● English Abstract:
Generally, in Criminal Law, “Consent” (Einverstandnis) is an action by which “legal interest possessor” (Rechtsgutstrager) disposes his/her “legal interest of property”, “legal interest of honor (Ehre)”, and “legal interest of freedom”. “Consent” and “the motives of consent” are two different issues； a consent is legally valid, even if the errors in motives of consent occurred. Take the elements of Rape for example, with a valid consent, when an individual engages in sexual intercourse with a male or female, it is not considered to be against his/her will. Furthermore, as for the means of rape stated in the general clause of Article 221, Paragraph 1 of Criminal Law, “other means against his/her will” should be interpret as “other means obtain force and against his/her will”. Therefore, “sexual intercourse by fraud”, which involves no force, is not rape.
● 文章連結：
● 資料來源：
法源法律網