即使2009 年中通過新的勞資爭議處理法，增設了勞動爭議行為阻卻刑事 違法的依據，但對於我國普遍存在的勞工抗爭活動型態其實助益不大，問題的 解決最終仍須回歸刑法上的實質違法性原理。臺灣因為特殊的歷史及社會脈 絡，對於勞工運動的態度較為保守，在這樣的背景下實務工作會更加需要論述 工具，故本文旨在提供實務上可用的判斷架構及操作準則。刑事違法的實質在 於法益侵害，阻卻違法的判斷可先透過連結刑法「法益」概念與憲法的基本權 保護意旨，將多元的考量引入刑法價值體系中，再透過「優越利益衡量」原理 及「可罰的違法性」理論的運用，開展行為阻卻違法的可能性。本文並舉三則 案例實際操作此判斷流程，附帶論及「爭議權」的憲法上地位、抗爭行為作為 「市民不服從」權之行使等問題，期能提供實務處理此類案件參考。

A criminal justification for industrial actions is provided in the Amendment of the Settlement of Labor Disputes Law, which has been adopted in 2009. However, the amendment does not provide relief for most of the labor protest activities in our country. An immediate resolution still lies in the theoryof substantial justification under the criminal law. Due to the unique historical and social context in Taiwan, the societyholds a more conservative attitude toward the labor activities. Under such a context, the appropriate illustrations are required for the practice. This paper aims at providing some practical guidelines and criteria. The core of criminal infringement is the breach of legal goods. While determining the criminal justification, we mayintr oduce a multiple consideration to the criminal legal matrix firstlythr ough linking the legal goods with the constitutional rights. Then we use the principle of "superior interest" and the "penalized breach of the law" theoryto extend the probabilityo f justification. Three cases are demonstrated in this paper. In addition, the paper deals with the constitutional status of "right to dispute" and the industrial actions as "civil disobedience".