- 學位論文
論建築工程中營造業技師之刑事責任-以九二一震災判決為中心
Criminal Liabilities of Professional Engineers in the Construction Industry Engaging in Architectural Engineering: Focusing on Court Rulings of the 921 Earthquake Cases
摘要
按建築法第15條第1、2項規定：「營造業應設置專任工程人員，負承攬工程之施工責任。」、「營造業之管理規則，由內政部定之。」，在民國94年10月27日廢止營造業管理規則前，建築法第15條所謂負擔建築施工責任之專任工程人員，於丙等營造業指具一定資格之技師、建築師、技副及工地主任；於乙及甲等營造業則專指具一定資格之技師及建築師。至於專任工程人員之工作執掌，營造業管理規則僅於第19條規定：「營造業之專任工程人員，負承攬工程之施工責任，並應於開工、竣工報告單及申請查驗單上簽名並蓋章。」，與專業有關者僅條文前段「負施工責任」，後段完全是行政文書作業之配合，然何謂「負施工責任」，是否指施工技術或施工安全，或兩者兼具，營造業管理規則或建築法均無明確規定。惟九二一地震發生後，司法單位多以刑法之違背建築術成規罪、偽造文書罪及業務過失罪等，起訴營造業技師，致有多位技師陷多年纏訟，難以脫身。 本研究檢討營造業管理規則、營造業法對營造業技師責任之規定，並分析刑法違背建築術成規罪、偽造文書罪及業務過失罪等之構成要件，同時蒐集九二一震災中，台中德昌新世界、彰化龍邦富貴名門、新莊博士的家、台北東星大樓及台中大里王朝等5個倒蹋建築物，關於技師責任部分之刑事判決，除歸納司法實務對於技師責任之見解，並與建築師部分作比較。經本研究整理發現，九二一震災當時法令無明確規定營造業技師之注意義務，但若干法院仍論以技師業務過失罪；又建築師與技師權責完全不同，但是法院論罪並無明顯區分；刑法違背建築術成規罪，均無成立，相關規定顯然值得檢討。
並列摘要
After the occurrence of the 921 Earthquake that the judicial sector indicted professional engineers in the construction industry on charges of violation of established architectural methods and practices, forgery, professional negligence, etc in the criminal law. This has resulted in a great many professional engineers’ involvement in prolonged legal proceedings. This study examines stipulations relating to the responsibilities of professional engineers in the construction industry as in the Management Rules of the Construction Industry and in the Building Code. The objective elements of crimes for violation of established architectural methods and practices, forgery, and professional negligence in the criminal law are analyzed. Further, criminal rulings in relation to professional engineers’ responsibilities in the cases of five respective collapsed buildings in the 921 Earthquake, i.e., the Taichung Dechang New World, Changhua Longbang Notable Family, Xinzhuang Doctor’s Home, Taipei Dongxing Building, and Taichung Dali Dynasty, are gathered in the attempt to grasp an understanding of judicial opinions in connection with professional engineers’ responsibilities, which are further compared with those in connection with architects. This study has found that a number of courts pronounced professional engineers guilty of professional negligence despite there had not been laws and decrees provided explicitly for obligations that professional engineers should have attended to during the time of the 921 Earthquake. Furthermore, court rulings have failed to differentiate the degrees of offenses between the responsibilities of architects and those of professional engineers. Relevant statutes evidently require reexamination in that violation of established architectural methods and practices in the criminal law has not been substantiated in either side.