金融科技在近年來已成為企業界與學術界所討論的顯學，但如何有效兼顧監理、法令遵循與促進產業發展，並因應創新商業模式，設計出法規與監理措施，已成為一道難題。基於上述背景，監理沙盒的概念與制度應運而生。我國版的金融監理沙盒，已於2018年1月31日公布。然而，除了金融科技創新，其他產業同樣有創新的必要，在面臨既有法規的限制，同樣有所掣肘。金融科技以外的領域，是否有類似「監理沙盒」的機制，在不分產業別的狀況下，應用在創新的實驗？日本在2014年1月20日起施行的「產業競爭力強化法」，用於創新技術或服務的「企業實證特例制度」及「灰色地帶消除制度」兩項機制，即為不限金融科技領域，適用於各個產業的沙盒制度。 本研究透過檢視日本產業競爭力強化法，深究其內容及機制的優缺點，與推行實績及具體的兩個個案後，據以反思我國是否可透過參考「灰色地帶消除制度」、「企業實證特例制度」的運作，與各產業內的潛在創新者更緊密合作，以有利於未來當主管機關面臨創新與法規的衝撞時，掌握對於各產業的影響。回歸我國法制，本研究針對「金融科技發展與創新實驗條例草案」，包括立法目的、概要，條例中的申請及審查、監督及管理，及實驗期間法令之排除適用及法律責任豁免等議題進行研析，並針對日本推動新事業活動特例措施，與我國金融科技發展與創新實驗條例，進行比較。同時亦將監理沙盒模擬演練的過程中，針對演練的架構、步驟、實際狀況、回饋與心得，提出歸納成果，並針對業者與主管機關進行協商與溝通的階段，歸納出具有邏輯性與合理性的執行步驟與方法論，做為當業者在準備階段與主管機關往返溝通與提案時的參考。 本研究認為，當創新與科技在與金融結合時，創新服務與法規監管的本質不同，所造成的緊張與衝突在所難免，也因此更應該體認到數位時代下主管機關對於法規調適與鬆綁之必要性。在臚列我國於發展第三方支付立法的經驗作為前車之鑑，及剖析日本產業競爭強化法的制度與實績作為他山之石後，本研究認為新創事業無論在籌備階段、實驗階段、營運階段，對於法規的特例需求的確不同於一般事業。因此政府應秉持以下三項原則予以協助：(一)法規對新創企業應更友善且主動輔導、(二)抱持產業永續發展的思維看待新創產業、(三)消費者權益維護與企業營運必須兼顧。 本研究的另一研究結果為，經過個案模擬演練的操作後，歸納並提出七個執行步驟，並建議業者可針對此七個步驟進行腦力激盪與預先演練模擬，在有限的時間內以最高的效率備齊相關文件，以減少審核等待期。最後，本研究認為，業者與主管機關在議題協商時須充分考量有關於創新、業務、消保、法遵等四個面向的議題，且以公私協力的前提下，隨時調整並良性溝通。而主管機關更應加速金融科技的法規革新速度，並適度鬆綁不適用的法規，創造一個對於新創產業相對友善的法規環境，協助新創業者在業務上的發展，使我國能在金融科技戰場上決勝。 / In recent years, financial technology, aka FinTech, has become a significant study discussed by industries and academics. However, how to effectively manage supervisory, compliance with laws and promote industrial development, and how to design regulatory and supervisory measures in response to innovative business models have become a big challenge. Based on the abovementioned facts, the concept of Regulatory Sandbox came into being. Taiwan’s Act on Financial Technology Innovations and Experiments was released on January 31, 2018. Besides FinTech, innovation is equally necessary and indispensable for other industries that also restrained by the limitations of the existing laws and regulations. Are there any mechanisms similar with Regulatory Sandbox for those innovators in other industries? Japan released the Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness on January 20, 2014, which provided two mechanisms, Special System for Corporate Field Tests and System to Remove Gray Zone Areas, for innovative technologies and services for all industries. This essay targets Japan’s and Taiwan’s Acts on Financial Technology Innovations as research objectives, discusses the investigations in both countuires, and provides suggestions for future works. Firstly, this study explores the strengths and weaknesses of its contents and mechanisms by examining Japan’s Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness, and aims at extending the practical angle to Taiwan for the future when facing the conflict between innovation and regulation. Secondly, the essay aims at studying Taiwan’s Act on Financial Technology Innovations and Experiments, and comparing the differences between Japan’s and Taiwan’s Acts. Finally, by observing the results of sandbox simulation exercises, this study elaborates implemental procedures, and logical methodologies as a reference for practitioners to communicate with and submit proposals to the authorities during the preparatory phase. Due to the nature difference of innovation technology and financial supervision, it is considered that the tensions and conflicts are inevitable. Therefore, it is more necessary to amend the existing regulations or even deregulate for start-up. Furthermore, by learning from Taiwan's experience in developing third-party payment legislation and Japan's legislations and actual practices released, this study obtains that deregulation and coordination from government agencies considered highly important to startup operators in every stage. In terms of industry development, further suggestions are concluded in this research for government agencies, including (1) laws and regulations should be more friendly for new start-up, (2) to maintain the sustainable development of start-up industries and operators, and (3)-to achieve balance between the protection of consumer rights and business continuity. After conducting sandbox case simulation exercises, this essay proposes seven procedures for start-up to efficiently go through with internal brainstorming while in preparation stage under a limited time. The last part of the study sets out four topics for practitioners and the competent authorities that are related to innovation, business, consumer protection and law compliance when negotiating the regulatory issues during experiments, hoping to provide a solid methodology beneficial to FinTech practitioners.