:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:強制手段與被害人受欺瞞的同意:以強制性交猥褻罪為中心
書刊名:國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者:王皇玉 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Huang-yu
出版日期:2013
卷期:42:2
頁次:頁381-432
主題關鍵詞:強制手段有瑕疵的同意違反被害人意願性侵害性騷擾高度強制手段低度強制手段Force methodsAgreement under deceptionAgainst the victims' willSexual assault crimeSexual harassmentHigh forcible meansLowly forcible means
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(13) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:12
  • 共同引用共同引用:87
  • 點閱點閱:176
刑法第211條規定,對於他人以強暴、脅迫、恐嚇、催眠術或其他違反其意願之方法而為性交者,處三年以上十年以下有期徒刑。何謂「其他違反意願之方法」?究竟需不需要先由加害人進行一個類似於強暴、脅迫、恐嚇的「強制手段」?此外,如果被害人受到加害人的欺騙而答應進行性交行為,可否認為是違反被害人意願的強制性交罪呢?此等詐騙式性交行為,有各式類型,例如宗教詐騙性交,加害人告知被害人受惡靈附身,只有與加害人為性交行為始可消災解厄;又例如白嫖型性交,被害人受加害人欺瞞誤以為與其性交後,可以取得對價;甚或騙婚型性交,被害人受加害人欺瞞,誤以為與加害人性交後,加害人願意與之結婚等等。本文的研究重心,主要探討「其他違反被害人意願」的手段究竟有多廣泛?在研究方法上,主要藉由我國法與德國法之比較,分析兩國刑法規定之異同,最後提出本文有別於德國法的看法。
In compliance with the provision of Article 211 of Criminal Code, a person who by threats, violence, intimidation, inducing hypnosis, or other means against the will of a male or female and who has sexual intercourse with such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than ten years. What is the so-called ”other means against the will of a person”? Is the use of a ”forcible means” similar to threats, violence and intimidation by an offender the prerequisite? Moreover, if a victim agrees to have sexual intercourse with an offender because he/she is deceived by the offender into it, shall such an offense be regarded as a crime of compulsory sexual intercourse? Offenders may use various fraudulent means to deceive victims into having sexual intercourse with them. Taking religious fraud for example, offenders may tell victims that they are possessed by a demon and the only way to exorcise the demon is to have sexual intercourse with them. Offenders may also deceive victims into having sexual intercourse with them by offering a payment (in a way similar to prostitution without a payment being made). Offenders may also deceive victims into having sexual intercourse with them by promising them with marriage. The victims become willing to have sexual intercourse with offenders because they think that they will get married. The research focus of this study is on investigating how wide the range of other means ”against the will of a male or female” is. As for the research method, this study mainly compared and analyzed the laws in Taiwan with those in Germany. In the end, this study pointed out the differences between the laws in Taiwan and those in Germany.
期刊論文
1.鄭逸哲(20101200)。與未滿16歲人進行性接觸之刑法適用--評析最高法院99年度臺上字第4894號刑事判決和最高法院99年度第7次刑事庭會議決議。法令月刊,61(12),35-48。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Schröder, H(1999)。Die Revolution des Sexualstrafrechts 1992-1998。JuristenZeitung,1999,827-833。  new window
3.Schroeder, F.-C(1971)。Die Straftaten gegen die sexuelle Selbstbestimmung nach dem Entwurf eines 4.。Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik,1971,14-21。  new window
4.Fischer, Thomas(2000)。Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung in schutzloser Lage。Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,112,75-105。  new window
5.Geerds, Friedrich(1954)。Einwilligung und Einverständnis des Verletzten im Strafrecht。Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht,262-271。  new window
6.Arzt, Gunther(1982)。Der strafrechtliche Ehrenschutz--Theorie und praktische Bedeutung。Juristische Schulung,717-728。  new window
7.王皇玉(20100100)。引狼入室。月旦法學教室,87,26-27。  延伸查詢new window
8.許玉秀(20120100)。重新學習性自主--勇敢面對問題。月旦法學,200,302-323。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.蔡聖偉(2012)。性侵害未滿七歲幼童的案例審查示範。月旦法學教室,115,33-35。  延伸查詢new window
10.黃榮堅(20111000)。2010年臺灣法律發展回顧--刑事法。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,40(特刊),1795-1841。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.高金桂(20110200)。強制性交罪的強制力行使--高雄地方法院九十九年度訴字第四二二號判決評析。月旦法學,189,251-262。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.許玉秀(20030100)。妨害性自主之強制、乘機與利用權勢--何謂性自主?:兼評臺北地院九一年訴字第四六二號判決。臺灣本土法學雜誌,42,16-36。  延伸查詢new window
13.林東茂(20080600)。醫療上病患承諾的刑法問題。月旦法學,157,45-70。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.李聖傑(20030600)。從性自主權思考刑法的性行為。中原財經法學,10,1-40。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.李聖傑(2004)。妨害性自主(第三講):類型闡述。月旦法學教室,23,99-106。  延伸查詢new window
16.李聖傑(20100600)。刑法第二二二條第一項第一款「二人以上共同犯之」之適用思考。政大法學評論,115,1-54。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.涂春金、劉柏江(20120600)。以宗教之名行騙性交是否構成強制性交罪?--兼論臺灣高等法院臺南分院99年度重上更(二)字第78號刑事判決暨最高法院99年度臺上字第8139號刑事判決。軍法專刊,58(3),50-64。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.盧映潔(20031100)。「猥褻」二部曲:論公然猥褻罪--兼評臺灣高等法院八十六年上易字第一一九號判決、臺東地院八十七年易字第五三六號判決、板橋地院八十八年度訴字第一五五六號判決、宜蘭地院八十八年度訴字第二九〇號判決。月旦法學,102,233-245。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.許玉秀(19990600)。妨害性自主罪與打擊錯誤。臺灣本土法學雜誌,2,115-122。  延伸查詢new window
20.林山田(19990800)。評一九九九年的刑法修正。月旦法學,51,16-42。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.林東茂(19990800)。評刑法妨害性自主罪章之修正。月旦法學,51,70-80。new window  延伸查詢new window
22.黃榮堅(19990600)。刑法增修概說。臺灣本土法學雜誌,2,205-212。  延伸查詢new window
23.盧映潔(20090800)。強制猥褻與性騷擾「傻傻分不清」?--評最高法院九十七年度第五次決議。月旦法學,171,215-228。new window  延伸查詢new window
24.Amelung, Knut、Eymann, Frieder(2001)。Die Einwilligung des Verletzten im Strafrecht。JuS,2001(10),937-946。  new window
學位論文
1.周昕緯(2013)。論乘機猥褻罪、強制猥褻罪與性觸摸罪之區分標準--兼評析法院判決(碩士論文)。國立臺北大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Maurach, R.(1983)。Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil。Heidelberg:C. F. Müller.。  new window
2.Maurach, Reinhard、Schroeder, Friedrich-Christian、Maiwald, Manfred(2003)。Strafrecht, Besonderer Teil。Heildelberg:C. F. Müller。  new window
3.Arzt, Gunther(1970)。Willensmängel bei der Einwilligung。Athenäum。  new window
4.Schönke, A.、Schröder, H.(2006)。Strafgesetzbuch。München:C. H. Beck.。  new window
5.Gössel, Karl Heinz(2005)。Das neue Sexualstrafrecht: Eine systematische Darstellung für die Praxis。Berlin:De Gruyter Recht。  new window
6.Roxin, Claus(2006)。Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil (Bd. I): Grundlagen, der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre。C. H. Beck。  new window
7.甘添貴(2010)。刑法各論。三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
8.林山田(2005)。刑法各罪論。林山田。  延伸查詢new window
9.褚劍鴻(2004)。刑法分則釋論。臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
10.Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich、Weigend, Thomas(1996)。Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil。Duncker & Humblot。  new window
11.Tröndle, H.、Fischer, Thomas(2007)。Strafgesetzbuch。  new window
12.Wessels, Johannes、Hillenkamp, Thomas(2008)。Strafrecht Besonderer Teil 2。Heidelberg:C. F. Müller.。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE