中文摘要：

「法益」乃刑法各罪章所欲保護之鵠的，其內涵泰半用以稱法律所欲保護之權利、利益或價值等內含人性尊嚴之重要性質者，認知上之類型劃分，向來有三分說與二分說之別，前者指國家法益、社會法益及個人法益，後者則僅概分為個人法益與超個人法益。

法益之定義迄今尚未能劃一，惟若依人性尊嚴之近代憲政價值以檢索法益應有之類型，其當以自然人為出發，人先誕生而後求存活，刑法致力於保障個人賡續活下去之價值，並使人得以按其自決之方式有尊嚴地活在此世上，據此乃形塑出個人法益；其要者厥為「人身法益」與「自由法益」二大類。在個人法益之外，尚須有超個人法益以為戍守，俾助個人法益盡可能地免於遭受不法行為之危害。個人法益之內涵每每隨當代人民之存活需求而有增減變動，超個人法益自亦須隨之俱進變化，是以，法益概念乃一與時俱轉之動態價值概念。
法益處分攸關法益持有人，由於超個人法益本質上乃涉多數或全體人民之共同利益，單獨個體本無從處分，從而，唯個人法益賦與處分權並為具有法律實效之處分。另，任何人均不得牴觸國家對於保護人身法益之誡命規範，故人身法益理當無權處分；至於自由法益，則因涉及個人自決以何種有尊嚴之方式存活於世上，故在不直接害及人身法益之前提下，理論上自得允許人民放棄國家對該法益之強行保護。
我國法制上，告訴乃論法文明定於實體法，自條文、文義解釋初為觀察，乃至於自立法上有重大變革之妨害性自主罪章為進一步檢視，吾人可得知告訴乃論制度之設，當係重視個人意願，並以其自主意思為重要依歸。告訴係個人明確表達國家刑罰權發動之訴求而展現於外之方式，就刑法所設告訴乃論之罪而言，堪稱居於實體法與程序法之樞紐。
個人法益之保護與告訴乃論之設，皆源自個人之主觀意願而為思量。個人法益之持有人為單獨個體，又以屬自由法益之罪，始具個人自決處分之可能。告訴乃論之罪攸關告訴，告訴之提出須透過告訴權人，告訴權人通常即為犯罪被害人，而犯罪被害人即係法益遭受攻擊之個人，該個人得依其自身意願決定是否提出告訴。因此，得做為個人法益處分之單獨個體，以及可為告訴與否決定之被害人，自得以法益作為連結。
依法益類型作為區劃告訴乃論與非告訴乃論之標準，首先可得，刑法各罪章之保護客體屬超個人法益者，必為非告訴乃論。其後，自各罪章保護客體屬個人法益者為檢視，人身法益之罪章應為非告訴乃論，自由法益之罪章，原則應為告訴乃論，而其中含有牽涉人身法益者，例外應納為非告訴乃論之設，方為妥適。
自上述分類，擇定以現行法之竊盜罪章與傷害罪章為例，蓋依本文之設計，超個人法益毫無討論告訴乃論之餘地，故僅限縮於個人法益為探討，且個人法益有人身法益與自由法益之別，二者之保護客體，均屬個人法益，故各擇定學理之法益位階論下，屬相對次高位階身體法益之傷害罪章，以及最低位階財產法益之竊盜罪章，作為具體形塑本文之發想。最後，依本文之見，在上開罪章於告訴乃論之設計上，顯然恰與制度設置之本旨背道而馳，竊盜罪章各罪應設為告訴乃論，而傷害罪章則不宜列在告訴乃論之範疇。

英文摘要：

The purpose of criminal law is to protect legal interests, so most of the laws protect the rights, interests, or values, which relate to the dignity of human beings. As we know, the differences are based on the three-division theory and the two-division theory. The former involves the national legal interest, societal legal interest, and individual legal interest. The later only includes the individual legal interest and universal legal interest.
　　Scholars do not yet entirely agree on the definition of legal interest. If we follow the concept of human dignity of modern constitutional values as an index for the type of legal interest, we should start with a natural person. First, an individual human being has to be born and then survive. The criminal law should be dedicated to protect an individual and an individual's continued ability to live. In addition, it should allow an individual to decide to live with dignity in an individual's own way.
　　Therefore, the individual legal interest emerges. The important two aspects are “living legal interest” and “dignified living legal interest”. Besides individual legal interest, there is still the universal legal interest, which needs to be guarded, in order to avoid being breached by an unlawful act. The content of individual legal interest often changes, depending on modern people's survival needs. In the same way, the universal legal interest also changes. So, the concept of legal interest is the active value following changing times.
　　The punishment by law involves the holder of the legal interest. Since the basic character of the universal legal interest relates to the majority or the entire common interest, there is no way to have an effective disposition of an individual. Furthermore, no one can contradict the regulation by the nation to protect living legal interest, so there is no right to apply.
　　As far as dignified living legal interest, it relates to one's own decision to live with a certain kind of dignity; therefore, while there is no direct breach of living legal interest, theoretically, people should be allowed to give up the enforcement protection by the state.
　　In the legal history of Taiwan, the offenses of charging only upon complaint are listed in substantive law. By reviewing the articles, the meanings, and even the alteration of free will on sex, we know this establishment emphasizes individual free will. To bring a prosecution is the clear expression of an individual hopes the state's to take an action, and it is truly a key point between substantive law and procedural law.
　　Both the protection of the individual legal interest and the offenses of charging only upon complaint relate to the subjective intention of a complaint. Since the holder of individual legal interest is an individual, only the individual can make the decision, when it comes to dignified living legal interest. Thus, the victims can choose to bring or not bring the charge depending on their free will.
　　The standard of the offenses of charging only upon complaint or not upon the complaint, depending on the types of legal interest. The victim does not have any choice in the offenses of universal legal interest and living legal interest, but has choices in the offenses of dignified living legal interest. Hence, the offenses of dignified living legal interest which concerned with living legal interest should be classified as not upon the complaint.
　　From the above classification, this study chooses offenses of larceny and offenses of causing bodily harm chapters as the examples. According to this study, there is no room for discussing the universal legal interest. However, the individual legal interest, including living legal interest and dignified living legal interest, are the objectives of the individual legal interest. Offenses of larceny and offenses of causing bodily harm are contrary to current regulations. Offenses of larceny should be prosecuted only upon complaint, but offenses of causing bodily harm should not be.

資料來源：

台灣博碩士論文知識加值系統