性騷擾罪與乘機猥褻罪之比較研究－以高雄地方法院判決為研析客體

Indecent Assault Crimes: A Study Based on Judgments from the Kaohsiung District Court

黃國瑞(Guo-Ruei Hwang)

性騷擾罪 ； 乘機猥褻罪 ； 強制猥褻罪 ； 性自主權 ； 性自由 ； Sexual Harassment Crime ； Indecent Assault Crime ； Forced Indecency Crime ； Sexual Autonomy ； Sexual Freedom

城市學學刊

14卷（2024 / 09 / 01）

61 - 89

繁體中文;英文

我國為防治性騷擾及保護被害人之權益，民國95年施行性騷擾防治法，其中為填補刑法未明文處罰強制觸摸行為，另於本法制定第25條第1項所謂強制觸摸罪之犯罪構成要件及刑罰，此罪又被通稱為性騷擾罪，其規定：「意圖性騷擾，乘人不及抗拒而為親吻、擁抱或觸摸其臀部、胸部或其他身體隱私處之行為者，處二年以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科新臺幣十萬元以下罰金」。性騷擾罪與保護個人性自主權之刑法第225條第2項乘機猥褻罪：「對於男女利用其精神、身體障礙、心智缺陷或其他相類之情形，不能或不知抗拒而為猥褻之行為者，處六月以上五年以下有期徒刑」。皆內含乘人不備之成罪要素，其他構成要件概念亦有相近之處，有釐清其界線之必要。此外，兩罪刑度不同，除刑法第57至第73條之總則量刑準則外，我國實務關於兩罪各別量刑準則亦有研究價值。本文以高雄地方法院近3年之相關判決作為檢視客體，以「兩罪之案件數」、「科刑結果」、「行為態樣」、「接觸是否短暫（瞬間）」、「行為客體類型」等作為分析項目，比較兩罪構成要件之具體認定標準、量刑之各別準則，以及性別差異是否可能影響科刑之輕重，為綜合分析。

In order to prevent and address sexual harassment and protect the rights of victims, Taiwan implemented the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act in 2006. This act addresses the issue of compulsory physical contact that is not explicitly covered by the Criminal Code. Specifically, Article 25, Paragraph 1 of this Act defines the crime of "forced touching," commonly referred to as sexual harassment, with the following provision: "Any person who, with the intent to sexually harass, kisses, hugs, or touches another person's buttocks, breasts, or other private areas of the body while the person is unable to resist, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years, detention, or a fine of up to NT$100,000." Sexual harassment under this law and the crime of "indecent assault" as defined in Article 225, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code both involve actions taken when a person is unprepared or unable to resist. The former involves acts of sexual harassment, while the latter involves indecent acts against individuals who are mentally or physically incapacitated or unable to resist. Both crimes contain elements related to taking advantage of a person's inability to resist, and there are similarities in their constituent elements, making it necessary to clarify the distinctions between them. Additionally, the different penalties prescribed for these crimes warrant further examination, including the study of sentencing guidelines and practical applications in the context of these two offenses. This paper examines relevant judgments from the Kaohsiung District Court over the past three years, analyzing the cases based on criteria such as "number of cases for each crime," "sentencing outcomes," "nature of the conduct," "whether the contact was brief or fleeting," and "type of conduct involved." The analysis aims to compare the specific standards for defining the elements of these crimes, the individual sentencing guidelines, and whether gender differences might affect the severity of the sentences.