本文是對於電信法第56條第一項之實務適用狀況的分析研究。我國法院對於電信法第56條第一項所規定盜接或盜用行為之處罰，幾乎均是按照最高法院決議所提出的標準，來決定犯罪成立與否，但這個判斷標準忽略了條文中「以有線、無線或其他電磁方式」的行為手段要求，而判決書中也往往以缺乏論述或曲解條文一般文義的方式認定犯罪成立。條文中對於行為手段的要求，正標示出該類行為動用刑罰規制的必要性，不可輕易忽視。本項中的「電磁方式」須從規範自身的觀點來理解，雖難從正面定義，但至少手段本身與電磁原理無關的行為，例如拿別人的SIM卡來用、或直接用他人的手機或裝設好的市內電話撥打電話等等，在使得盜接、盜用得以成功的關鍵環節上，完全不需用到任何有關電磁方面的知識或技術，即應被排除在「電磁方式」的範疇之外。
This article was to analyze the practice concerning Article 56(1) of Telecom-munications Act. The courts apply Article 56(1) by virtue of the criteria set by the Supreme Court. However, these criteria deviate from the text of Article 56(1), which states the offense conducted through wire-based, wireless or other electro-magnetic means. Furthermore, the judges used to and still dose misinterpret the legal text of Article 56(1). As a result, a large number of cases fell into the scope of Article 56(1), even if they did not involve electromagnetic means. The requirement of the means indicates the basis for the penalty and therefore should not be neglected. The author argues that the unauthorized access or use of another persons telecommunications facilities in Article 56(1) refers only to the actions conducted through electromagnetic means. The actions, which relate to the electromagnetic devices, such as using mobile phones of others, do not constitute the offense provided for in Article 56(1). On the other hand, criminal regulation is not suitable for the problem situation. The demand for penalty arose from weakness of civil relation status, but penalty cannot relieve it.
