外籍移工在我國第一、二級產業扮演極重要角色，但其勞動處境與法規範之落差，並未受到學術及實務界之重視。本文以外勞在我國面臨之勞力剝削現況為基礎，探討我國人口販運防制法第32條之勞力剝削罪規範，並澄清勞力剝削罪與刑法第296條使人為奴罪、勞動基準法第75條強迫勞動罪相異之處。本文以國際勞工組織第29號、第105號公約，2000年聯合國防制人口販運議定書、歐洲人權公約、歐洲打擊人口販運公約等國際規範為出發點，並參考國際規範及歐洲人權法院判決，探求國際社會對奴隸、奴役、強迫勞動之定義及適用情形。並針對實務見解錯謬之處，說明我國人口販運法勞力剝削罪正確之解釋方向，最後提出勞力剝削罪之修法建議。我國實務上對於勞力剝削之規範目的及構成要件存有嚴重誤解，將低度心理強制即可成立之勞力剝削罪，卻以最高度不法之使人為奴罪構成要件嚴格審查之，此種見解已嚴重曲解勞力剝削罪之立法意旨，亦違反打擊人口販運、保障尊嚴勞動權之國際公約與世界潮流。

Although labor exploitation is recognized as a major form of human trafficking, few research have been done in Taiwan. Since Taiwan has long been graded as Tier 1 country in the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report by the U.S. government, Taiwan authorities assume no further actions are needed, and the Human Trafficking Prevention Act passed in 2009 – yet full with bizarre elements and unclear definitions – has never been modified. Moreover, prosecutors and judges continued to demonstrate limited understanding of labor exploitation crimes by not appropriately recognizing the essence of labor exploitation. By reviewing the latest judgments relating to forced labor cases of ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), and international treaties of UN, Council of Europe and ILO (International Labour Organization), this study analyzes the existing misconceptions of labor exploitation crimes in Taiwan’s court decisions. This article argues that Article 296 of Criminal Code (Slavery), Article 75 of Labor Standards Law (Forced Labor) and Article 32 of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act (Labor Exploitation) are related, partly overlapping yet different crimes, and proposes alternative interpretations of Article 32 of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act.