自古以來，人們就有使用標記的習慣，而對於標記使用的開端，已難以考證，此外，使用商標的行為對於現代社會具有重要的意義，欠缺商標的經濟市場難以運行，消費者無從區別、選購商品，生產者則欠缺提升產品品質的動力，不僅經濟市場機制無法運行，更可能導致經濟競爭機制的崩塌，有鑒於商標的重要性，各國相互簽訂國際條約，制定相關制度規範、保障商標，並對於仿冒商標的行為制訂民事和刑事責任。我國商標法對於仿冒商標的行為，原本只有民事侵權責任之規範，然而，因應當時代的國際情勢和國際條約之需求，我國商標法納入刑事規範處罰仿冒商標及販賣仿冒品的行為，在經過幾次修法後，現今我國商標刑罰的條文主要是以消費者的角度，判斷係爭行為是否成立商標罪責，亦即，藉由「混淆誤認之虞」作為商標刑責成立的門檻，除此之外，現行我國商標刑罰的條文尚包含商標使用行為的判斷及行為人主觀要件的具備。 然而，綜觀我國商標法刑事責任的條文，不僅條文內容多為不確定法律概念，與我國商標法民事侵權責任之條文內容幾近相同。民事責任和刑事責任於其本質上大有不同，基於刑罰手段的嚴厲性，對於人民權利的侵害程度非民事責任所能比擬，故有刑法最後手段性原則的出現，但是，我國現行商標法的民事侵權責任和刑罰規範內容幾近相同，則似有違刑法的謙抑性，因此，似有重新對我國現行商標刑罰條文重新檢視之必要，而探究刑法存在的目的，現行多數見解認為是刑法法益，故將探究商標法的保護法益為何，再從確立的法益重新解釋商標刑罰的條文，又商標法第95條為最典型和最原始的仿冒商標行為規範，因此，將專注於商標法第95條的檢討和反思。 / Since ancient times, people have had the habit of using marks, yet the beginning of the use of the mark has been hard to verify. In addition, the use of trademark has important meaning for the modern society. Without trademark, the economic market would be hard to operate. Consumers would not be able to distinguish one product from another, let alone buying the product. As for producers, they would lack the motivation to promote the quality of the product. It might not only stop the operation of the economic market, but also lead to the collapse of the economic competition mechanism. In light of the importance of the trademark, most of the countries signed international treaties, made relevant norms to protect trademarks and formulated civil and criminal liability for counterfeiting trademarks. Originally, there was only civil liability in our trademark law, however, due to the international situation of that time and the needs of the international treaties, our trademark law has brought in criminal punishment for counterfeiting trademarks and selling counterfeit goods. After several amendments to the trademark law, our trademark penalty is mainly based on the view of consumers to determine whether the conduct is found guilty, that is, by using the concept of " the likelihood of confusion" as the threshold of the establishment of the trademark criminal liability. Apart from that, our trademark penalties also require the use of trademark and the subjective elements. However, if we look through our trademark penalties, there are full of uncertain legal concepts, and the content of the provision is same as the trademark civil liability. But there is great difference between the nature of the civil liability and criminal liability, so it is necessary to review our trademark penalty again, and from the view of Rechtsgut. Therefore, after defining the Rechtsgut of our trademark penalty, I would reinterpret Article 95 of the trademark law from the point of view of Rechtsgut, as Article 95 is the typical and the original norms for the conduct of counterfeiting trademarks.