本文以檢視2010年國內社會對於刑法領域相關問題之對應為內容，敘述並評析年度中發展出來之法律變動、大法官會議解釋、最高法院刑事庭會議決議，以及社會重大事件。關於法律變動，主要僅涉及刑法第294條之1對於排除遺棄罪之事由的增訂。大法官會議解釋的部分，包括釋字第678、679及680號解釋；其中680號解釋除了堅持行政法上授權明確性原則外，刑法上構成要件明確性原則與系爭問題的相關性也成為爭議話題；678號解釋（違反電信法之刑罰規定）及679號解釋（易科罰金之罪與他罪之數罪併罰）都屬於刑罰必要性考量的刑事政策問題。比較特別的是年度中幾個社會重大事件，亦即對於陳前總統貪污案的判決、導致法務部易主的廢死問題爭議，以及幾個性侵案判決所引起的白玫瑰運動。在這些事件中，最重要的似乎已經不是法律理論的問題，而是法律理論在面對所謂民主社會時，其理論功能極限的問題，換言之，也可以說是政治問題。也難怪接下來的最高法院第七次刑事庭會議，對於白玫瑰運動之訴求，產生了一個顯然悖於法理的決議。至於其他決議則較為單純，即是對法院在若干法條文字解釋歧異的統一約定。

This article is intended to examine criminal law issues in Taiwan in the year of 2010. The analyses include one legal change, interpretations of the Grand Justice Council, resolutions by the Criminal Divisions Conference of the Supreme Court, and some controversial events in Taiwanese society. The legal change refers to the enactment of the exculpatory clause to the offenses of desertion (Article 249-1 of Criminal Code). The interpretations of the Grand Justice Council include No. 678, No. 679 and No. 680. No. 680 deals with the principle of the explicit authorization in administrative law and the requirement of the explicit elements in criminal law. Both No. 678 and No. 679 deal with the policy issue about the necessity of punishment. The former involves with offenses against regulations in Telecommunications Act, while the latter involve with the convert imprisonment into fine and the combined punishment for several offences. In the year 2010, the criminal law has faced unprecedented attacks and controversies. The controversies are triggered respectively by the conviction of corruption against former President Chen Shui-bian, government’s plan to abolish the death penalty, and several court judgments on child rape. The last one even triggered a child rape victims’ rights movement -- the White Rose movement. In these events, the most important issue has little to do with legal theories. It is rather about the limitation of the legal theories to meet the punitive demands from the society. The issues in these events are apparently political. It explains why the Criminal Divisions Conference of the Supreme Court made a legally indefensible resolution to respond to the requests by the movement activists. Other resolutions made by the Criminal Divisions Conference of the Supreme Court merely intend to unify diverse interpretations of the law for the lower courts.