唐律不應得為罪的當代思考

A Contemporary View on the ＂Doing What Ought Not to Be Done＂ statute of the T’ang Code

黃源盛(Huang Yuan-sheng)

不應得為 ； 唐律 ； 罪刑法定 ； 禮與刑 ； 立法技術 ； Doing What Ought Not to Be Done ； the T’ang Code ； Ritual and Punishment ； nullum crimen sine lege ； nulla poena sine lege ； Legislative techniques

法制史研究

5期（2004 / 06 / 01）

1 - 8+10-38+40-61

繁體中文

在傳統中國刑律中，有一名為「不應得為罪」者，其涵義係指律、令雖無專條禁止，但據「理」不可為的行為。此類行為，無所不包，難以概舉，要之，皆屬違反當時代「禮」與「理」的社會價值觀念者。也就是說，一切違背倫理義務的反道義行為，或違反基本生活秩序的行為，若不能運用輕重相舉條，又毫無比附之餘地時，為落實情罪平允的實質正義理念，皆可歸入「不應得為」，而援引此條予以科罰。以《唐律》言，「不應得為罪」形式上列在〈雜律篇〉之末，屬於所謂的「正條」，惟其內容則大異其它正條之趣。在英文翻譯上，有人將其譯為「catch-all statute」，其立法用意實在耐人尋味。想問的是：「不應得為」條的法源可溯自何時？處罰的根據何在？律令既無明確犯罪的構成要件，其「應」與「不應」的界限究竟在哪？違反事理「輕」與「重」的基準又在哪？如何從《唐律疏議》本身的疏釋例示，來正確解讀其涵義？而從現存的斷簡殘編判文中能否窺見其運作實態？從當代刑法觀念，可能聯想到那些相關問題？它對後世的中國及近鄰的日本又產生了何等影響？凡此疑問，皆屬帝制中國刑律之要者，而中外法史學界相關的論述相當少見，即使有，也多語焉不詳；本文嚐試深入律意，舉例闡釋，並參酌近世刑法原理，企圖作較詳盡與突破性的申義與論理。

The judicial procedure of imperial China required that the citation of a relevant statute or ordinance always accompany the pronouncement of sentence. Because most laws tended to be narrowly specific, judges were frequently confronted by cases whose circumstances were not clearly covered by any existing statutes or ordinances. The major device for coping with this problem was the application of law by analogy. In addition, several so-called ＂catchall statutes＂ were adopted, of which the ＂doing what ought not to be done＂ statute was the most commonly used for relatively minor infractions. By this, individuals convicted of doing what ought not to be done received a punishment of 40 blows of the light bamboo for minor infractions or 80 blows of the heavy bamboo for serious infractions. In the general format of the T’ang Code, the ＂ought not＂ statute was positioned at the end of the tenth division entitled ＂the Miscellaneous Statutes＂ (tsa lü). It was a regular statute like other substantial ones formally in the code, but was very marvelous exactly. Putting into effect the traditional idea of ＂let the punishment fit the crime＂, any acts which disregarded the ＂li＂ (ritual; etiquette) or contradicted the ＂li＂ (reason; right) were considered to be ＂ought not＂. The statute was aimed at all acts that diverged from social order or violated ethical or moral duties. These were acts that, though not specifically prohibited, were deemed reprehensible by the authority. There is no doubt that, the ＂ought not＂ statute contradicts the contemporary thinking of the ＂nullum crimen sine lege; nulla poena sine lege＂ principle. From a contemporary perspective, serious of questions arise: When did the ＂ought not＂ statute begin? What was the real purpose of this legislation? How was the punishment determined? As there were no explicit conditions to define the crime of ＂doing ought not＂, what did ＂ought＂ and ＂ought not＂ really mean? What were the standards of ＂seriousness＂ in situation and reason? How were the explanation and examples in the ＂T’ang-lü-shu-yi＂ (T’ang Code with Commentary) used to understand the real meaning of the statute? How can we determine the exact practice of the statute using the extant T’ang documents which are only marginally relative to judicial practice? By invoking the principles of contemporary criminal law, what problems can we clarify? How did this statute’s influence later dynasties and other countries, for instance, Japan? To date the ＂ought not＂ statute has rarely been studied; the goal of the present paper is to understand the issues set out above.

1. 高明士(2003)。從律令制的演變看唐宋間的變革。台大歷史學報，32
   連結：
2. (1967)。四部叢刊初編經部：尚書大傳。上海:上海商務印書館。
3. (1982)。清代地租剝削型態。北京:中華書局。
4. (1975)。漢書。台北:洪氏出版社。
5. 唐張鸞撰、田濤、郭成偉校注(1996)。龍筋鳳髓判。北京:中國政法大學出版社。
6. A.P d''Entreves著、李日章譯(1992)。自然法。台北:聯經出版社。
7. Dennis Lioyd著、張茂柏譯(1992)。法律的理念。台北:聯經出版社。
8. Derk Bodde,Clarence Morris,Hsing-an hui-lan (Translated)(1967).Historical, Social, and Juridical Commentaries.Harvard University Press.
9. Fu-mel Chang Chen=張富美(1970).On Analogy in Ch'ing Law.Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,30
10. 中村茂夫(1983)。不応爲考－「罪刑法定主義」の存否をも巡つて。金沢法學，26(1)
11. 佐伯千仞(1968)。元老院の不応爲律廃止論－明治初年における罪刑法定主義。立命館法學，75(6)
12. 沈家本(1964)。沈寄簃先生遺書。台北:文海出版社。
13. 沈家本。寄簃文存·卷三：故殺胞弟二命現行例部院解釋不同說。
14. 岩崎二郎(1976)。罪刑法定主義と不応爲及び援引比附。神奈川法學，5(2)
15. 俞榮根、中南財經政法大學法律史研究所編(2003)。中西法律傳統。北京:中國政法大學出版社。
16. 唐耕耦主編(1994)。中國珍稀法律典籍集成。北京:科學出版社。
17. 徐道鄰(1958)。唐律通論。台北:台灣中華書局。
18. 高明士(1999)。唐律與國家社會。台北:五南書局。
19. 梁治平(1960)。清代習慣法：社會與國家。北京:中國政法大學出版社。
20. 程樹德(1955)。九朝律考。台北:商務印書館。
21. 黃源盛(1998)。中國傳統法制與思想。台北:五南書局。
22. 黃源盛(2004)。法理與文采之間―讀龍筋鳳髓判。政大法學評論，79
23. 黃源盛(1998)。中國傳統法制與思想。台北:五南書局。
24. 黃源盛(2001)。當代基礎法學理論－林文雄教授祝壽論文集。台北:學林出版社。
25. 黃源盛、高明士主編(2003)。東亞文化圈的形成與發展。台北:國立台灣大學歷史學系。
26. 劉俊文(1996)。唐律疏議箋解。北京:中華書局。
27. 蔡墩銘(1972)。唐律與近世刑事立法之比較研究。台北:中國學術著作獎助委員會。
28. 錢大群(2000)。唐律研究。北京:法律出版社。
29. 戴炎輝(1988)。唐律各論。台北:成文出版社。
30. 戴炎輝(1970)。唐律通論。台北:正中書局。
31. 薛允升(1977)。唐明律合編。台北:商務印書館。
32. 薩孟武(1983)。中國社會政治史。台北:三民書局。
33. 蘇俊雄(1974)。刑事法學的方法與理論。台北:懷寧出版社。
34. 蘇俊雄(1995)。刑法總論I。台北:蘇俊雄。

1. 陳麗君(2009)。元雜劇中法律的戲劇呈現。東海中文學報，21，89-111。
2. 高明士(2011)。唐律中的「理」─斷罪的第三法源。臺灣師大歷史學報，45，1-40。
3. 黃源盛(2008)。釋滯與擅斷之間—唐律輕重相舉條的當代詮釋。法制史研究，13，1-42。
4. (2004)。法理與文采之間—讀《龍筋鳳髓判》。政大法學評論，79，1-52。
5. (2004)。清代的法律方法論—以《刑案彙覽三編》爲中心的論證。法制史研究，6，99-133。
6. (2009)。從唐代「生祠立碑」論地方信息法制化。法制史研究，15，1-58。