法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 刑法上個別化公務員概念(The Concept of Individualized Government Employees in the Criminal Law)
編著譯者: 黃榮堅
出版日期: 2009.12
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 38 卷 第 4 期 /273-334 頁
頁  數: 62 點閱次數: 181
下載點數: 248 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 黃榮堅
關 鍵 詞: 公務員公權力法益國家國營事業公務依法行政圖利貪污限縮解釋
中文摘要: 第十六次刑法修正時,對於刑法上公務員概念亦修正其定義,其意旨在合理限縮以公務員為構成要件之犯罪規定的適用範圍。其實,修正前的條文原本亦有其解釋的空間,只不過經過早先司法院的解釋,使得條文的適用出現有過於浮濫的情形。問題是,修正後的文字是否就合理解決了先前存在的問題?單是從條文文字結構來看,似乎並非必然如此,因為多角度公務員概念並列的定義方式,形式上即不利於公務員概念的限縮解釋。事實上新法實施後,學說或實務對於公務員概念的問題,不管是抽象要件的論述,或是具體個案的適用,依然呈現相當分歧的情況。本文則從方法上根本懷疑,對於刑法上全部涉及公務員概念之犯罪類型,給予統一定義的可能性,因此試圖從對照若干犯罪類型中公務員概念各自應有之範圍界定,去驗證此一基本假設。以下首先敘述刑法關於公務員定義的修法以及問題情況(壹),其次,由於個別犯罪類型的法益保護任務決定構成要件的解釋方向與尺度,所以本文接著選擇若干涉及公務員概念之犯罪類型,探討其可能不同之公務員概念的界線(貳、參、肆),最後總結公務員概念統一定義的問題以及可能的處理之道(伍)。
英文關鍵詞: government employeegovernment authoritylegal interestthe statestate-owned enterprisepublic affairsrule of lawillicit benefitcorruptionrestrictive interpretation
英文摘要: In the 16th revision of the Criminal Law in Taiwan, the definition of the government employee has also been amended (Article 10 Sec 2). Nevertheless, this amendment still does not solve issues that have existed previously. The amendment, which has juxtaposed different kinds of concepts of the government employee, is in nature detrimental to restricting the scope of this concept. Unsurprisingly, after the amendment took effect, scholars and practitioners still have very different views regarding to the concept of the government employee, when they discuss this issue abstractly, or apply the concept to solve relevant cases. This article thus intends to raise a fundamental question about the methodology of this amendment: whether it is possible to have one definition for different kinds of offenses involving with the government employee in the Criminal Law. This article argues that according to the premise that the interpretation of individual offense shall hinge on the legal interest that each offense is involved ,government employee conception in different kinds of offenses shall be different. That is, different kinds of offenses might define the government employee in the general, broad or strict term. If the legislator insists in giving a unified definition for different kinds of offenses involving with the government employee, the best way is to make it as broadest as possible, so that the judges can restrict the interpretation of the statute later according to the goal of the individual offense. But this article believes that it does not make any sense to define this concept in such an abstract and broad term. This article would rather argue that with respect to the concept of the government employee, it is preferable to individualize the concept. That is, the concept of the government employee in the individual offense should be defined according to the interests protected.
目  次: 壹、修法及問題
  一、修法大概
  二、問題情況
  三、方法論上的質疑
貳、功能意義的公務員概念
  一、妨害公務罪
  二、偽造公文書罪
  三、廢弛職務釀成災害罪
  四、不純正瀆職罪
參、廣義功能意義的公務員概念
  一、圖利罪
  二、收受賄賂罪
肆、嚴格組織意義的公務員概念
  一、竊取或侵占公有財物罪
  二、對於非主管或監督之事務圖利罪
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列