線民之干預與授權問題—以線民之偵查活動為中心—

Abstract

本文探討線民之干預與授權問題，首先嘗試釐清問題的層次，將線民所引發的憲法及法律問題，歸納為干預脈絡、挑唆脈絡、訊問脈絡與直接性脈絡（貳）。其次，本文處理結合憲法基本權體系的干預脈絡問題，首先說明六種實質偵查者的類型，並據此分析線民行為的國家性，提出以線民活動而非其型態作為判斷之基準，並分析具體運用及邊界案例（參）。再者，針對歸納為國家行為的線民活動，本文進而從基本權保護領域及其干預概念，進而區別論述何種線民行為構成基本權干預並應受到憲法基本權體系及刑事訴訟上干預規範之拘束（肆）。針對構成國家干預之線民行為，本文再繼續檢討其法律保留之問題，逐一檢討目前我國法之相關規範是否足以構成在刑事訴訟法上利用線民偵查之授權基礎（伍）。本文結論認為，我國法目前的規範無法作為以線民為干預性偵查之授權基礎，故進而檢討所生的證據使用禁止問題（陸），最後並以瑞士的立法為例，呼籲立法者必須儘速訂立線民的法律授權基礎，藉此同時解決線民其他脈絡之法律問題（柒）。

We will discuss problems of the intervention and authority of informants in this article. Firstly, we try to clarify the nature of these issues, and then we classify the constitutional and legal problems induced by the informants as contexts of intervention, entrapment, interrogation and direct character. Secondly, we deal with problems combined with the context of intervention in constitutional fundamental rights. We explicate six kinds of substantial investigations, analyze the national character of an informant’s actions on the above grounds, bring a criterion of judgment according to an informant’s action rather than type, and analyze concrete practices and indistinct cases. Furthermore, in the light of an informant’s action classified as national action, we distinguish and discuss which kinds of informants’ actions constitute the intervention of fundamental rights, and which kinds should be restricted by a system of constitutional fundamental rights and regulations of criminal procedural intervention from the protective field and intervening conception of fundamental rights. In accordance with an informant’s action constituting national intervention, we proceed with an examination of problems of legal reservation and review in turn to determine whether the related regulations in our country are sufficient to serve as the basis of authority for the use of informants in the investigation of criminal procedural law. We conclude that the regulations in our country cannot serve as the basis of authority of intervening investigation for the use of informants, and we examine problems of related prohibition of evidence. Lastly, we must appeal to our legislators to draw up the basis of legal authority of informants as soon as possible, and solve the problems of informants in other contexts at the same time.