| 關 鍵 詞： |
外聘專家委員；授權公務員；從事公共事務；法定職務權限；都市計畫委員會 |
| 中文摘要： |
刑法第 10 條第 2 項第 1 款後段的「其他依法令從事於公共事務，而具有法定職務權限者」，被稱為授權公務員。不具公務員身分的學者專家，受邀擔任委員會的委員，可能被認定屬於從事公共事務、具有法定職務權限，而成為一日公務員，背負刑事責任。本文將說明，刑法修法當時參考了德國、日本規定，但並沒有明白指出外聘學者專家是否為授權公務員。但因修法理由提到了政府採購人員，後來最高法院將採購人員擴張到採購評選委員，涵蓋外聘的專家委員。本文將對外聘學者專家擔任委員，進行分類，並說明不同類型下，其擁有的實質決定權不同。本文主張，若外聘專家委員不具有實質的、獨立決策權，不該被認為具有法定職務權限，而成為公務員。本文也以一則都市計畫委員會的真實案例，進行評析。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
External Experts as Committee Member；Authorized Public Official；Engaged in Public Affairs；Legal Function and Power；Urban Planning Committee |
| 英文摘要： |
The second sentence of Article 10(2) of Criminal Code provided that: “The term ‘public official’ means the following persons ... 1. Those who empowered with legal function and power ... engaged in public affairs in accordance with law,” also called “authorized public official.” Those scholars and experts without the identity of public official, once been invited as a Committee members and accepted, would be deemed as “engaged in public affairs” and “empowered with legal function and power”, becoming a “one day public official,” and had the possibility of bearing criminal responsibility. We will explain that, when the Criminal Code was amended, it refers the related provision of criminal code of German and Japan, but the reason for amendment didn’t mentioned whether external scholars and experts be or not the “authorized public official.” However, the reason for amendment did mentioned procurement personnel included in the authorized public official; therefore, Supreme Court decisions extended the scope of procurement personnel to evaluation committee members, including external scholars and experts. We will try to classify different committees, elaborating that external scholars and experts in different committees have different decision-making power. We argues that, if external scholars and experts have no substantial, independent decision-making power, they should not be deemed as having legal function and power, and should not be deemed as “authorized public official.” We will use a true court case about a member of urban planning committee to elaborate our theory, and review this case.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、刑法公務員定義
一、公務員定義修法理由
二、比較德國、日本
三、「授權公務員」之範圍：以政府採購人員為例
參、外聘專家委員之行為類型與責任
一、專家參與的行為類型與決策參與
二、衛星廣播電視事業審查委員會與國賠責任
三、機關實質掌控委員會的真實運作：以都市計畫委員會為例
四、以有無獨立實質決定權作為判準
五、如何避免外聘委員收取利益
肆、「區域計畫委員會」與「都市計畫委員會」外聘委員是否為授權公務員之判決評析
一、區域計畫委員會外聘委員非授權公務員
二、都市計畫委員會是否為公務員？
三、比較與評析
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|