林信銘∗

摘要

隨著人工智慧的快速發展，科技在為人類帶來便利的同時亦造成一定的負面效應，近年來興起的「深度偽造」即屬其中一例。為了規制日漸受到社會關注的色情深度偽造，立法院於2023 年1 月7 日三讀通過增訂刑法第319 條之4「不實性影像罪」，對於製作和散布他人之不實性影像的行為科以刑事處罰。然而，此一新法甫通過即招致學界諸多批判，究其原因係在於不實性影像罪充滿爭議的保護法益。本文逐一分析文獻上所列舉的隱私權、名譽權、人格權以及不淪為他人發洩性慾之想像客體的權利為何不適於作為不實性影像罪之保護法益，並指出應從製作和散布不實性影像係侵害性自主決定權的角度出發，著眼於此一行為使被害人透過影音以與性有關的樣貌供人觀覽，造成被害人被迫以公開的方式涉入與性有關之事件，故不實性影像罪之保護法益應為被害人之「性的私密權」。自保護「性的私密權」之立場而言，不僅可解釋為何不實性影像罪所配置的法定刑如此之重，且尚可說明該罪與規範真實性影像的刑法第319 條之1 至第319 條之3 被置於同一罪章的合理性。由於色情深度偽造所侵害者係「性的私密權」，因此其規制重心在於不實性影像之供人觀覽，至於其他深度偽造的規制重心則在於透過傳遞不實影音而使人誤信該影音內容為真，故對於色情深度偽造與其他深度偽造的規制應分別採取不同的刑事立法模式。

The Protected Legal Interest of the Criminal Offense of the Falsification of Sexual Images

Sin-Min Lin ∗∗

Abstract

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, technology has made human life more convenient but has also led to some negative consequences. One example of this is the recent emergence of deepfakes. To regulate pornographic deepfakes that attract public attention, the Taiwanese parliament added Article 319-4, specifically addressing the offense of falsifying sexual images, to the Criminal Code on January 7, 2023. This law criminalizes the creation and distribution of falsified sexual images. However, this new offense has been heavily criticized in legal scholarship immediately after coming into force. The main controversy lies in the legally protected interest of this offense. The legal interests cited in the literature include privacy, honor, personality rights, and the right not to be used as a fictional sexual object for the satisfaction of others’ sexual
desires. This paper analyzes why the cited legal interests are not

suitable as the protected legal interest of the offense of falsifying sexual images. It argues that the creation and distribution of falsified sexual images infringe upon the victim’s sexual self-determination. Since falsified sexual images publicly display the victim in a sexualized manner, the victim is forced to be involved in a sexual context in a public way. Therefore, the protected legal interest of the offense of falsifying sexual images should be the right to sexual intimacy. From the perspective of protecting the right to sexual intimacy, it becomes clear why such a severe punishment is imposed
under this offense. Additionally, this perspective explains why this offense is placed in the same section of the Special Part of the Criminal Code as Articles 319-1 to 319-3, which relate to real sexual images. Since pornographic deepfakes violate the right to sexual intimacy, the regulation of pornographic deepfakes focuses on the public display of falsified sexual images. In contrast, the regulation of other types of deepfakes primarily concerns misleading the public into falsely believing in the authenticity of falsified images. Therefore, different legislative models should apply to the regulation of pornographic deepfakes and other deepfakes.