中文摘要

本研究對於電信法第56條第1項之實務適用狀況進行分析，發現我國法院對於電信法第56條第1項所規定盜接或盜用行為之處罰，幾乎均是按照最高法院決議所提出的標準，來決定犯罪成立與否，但這個判斷標準忽略了條文中「以有線、無線或其他電磁方式」的行為手段要求，而判決書中也往往以缺乏論述或曲解條文一般文義的方式認定犯罪成立。條文中對於行為手段的要求，正標示出該類行為動用刑罰規制的必要性，不可輕易忽視。本項中的「電磁方式」須從規範自身的觀點來理解，雖難從正面定義，但至少手段本身與電磁原理無關的行為，例如拿別人的SIM卡來用、或直接用他人的手機或裝設好的市內電話撥打電話等等，在使得盜接、盜用得以成功的關鍵環節上，完全不需用到任何有關電磁方面的知識或技術，即應被排除在「電磁方式」的範疇之外。 實務上之所以擴張處罰範疇，可能是順應民眾對施加刑罰的期待，但這種期待只是反映了電信消費者因民事關係上處於弱勢地位、無計可施之下產生的不安情緒，並非社會真正的刑罰需求。對盜打行為採取刑事規制其實並非必要，也無助於解消民眾的不安，國家與其將資源投注在刑事司法上，不如督促業者改進防範技術、調整服務方案、提升用戶權益，並在紛爭解決程序中維護當事人間的衡平，這些措施才更具實益。  

English Abstract

This article was to analyses the practice concerning Article 56(1) of Telecommunications Act. The courts apply Article 56(1) by virtue of the criteria set by the Supreme Court. However, these criteria deviate from the text of Article 56(1), which states the offense conducted through “wire-based, wireless or other electromagnetic means.” Furthermore, the judges used to and still dose misinterpret the legal text of Article 56(1). As a result, a large number of cases fell into the scope of Article 56(1), even if they did not involve electromagnetic means. The requirement of the means indicates the basis for the penalty and therefore should not be neglected. The author argues that the “unauthorized access or use of another person‘s telecommunications facilities” in Article 56(1) refers only to the actions conducted through electromagnetic means. The actions, which relate to the electromagnetic devices, such as using mobile phones of others, do not constitute the offense provided for in Article 56(1). On the other hand, criminal regulation is not suitable for the problem situation. The demand for penalty arose from weakness of civil relation status, but penalty cannot relieve it.

資料來源：https://goo.gl/6E7vvT