晚近,由於社會的多元化與專業化,行政機關在面對瞬息萬變的事務上常引進專家學者參與公共事務的諮詢、評選、監督與調查等事項,此等專家或爲專門職業技術人員或爲大學教授,在社會上有其角色地位。一旦參與國家事務,其身分在法律地位上究應如何定位、學界與實務尚未有一致之見解。 本文試從專家學者參與之類型分析該等人員在行政法與刑法上之法律地位,並從比較法的角度觀察德、日兩國如何定位,由於現行法解釋論上呈現截然不同之觀點,本文除分析解釋造成個案適用不一致有違「法安定性」外,故應思考跳脫法律解釋論上之糾葛,並提出立法論上解決方法結論與建議。
Since modem times, with diversified development and professional-oriented trend in the society, administrative authority tends to adopt professional opinion with respect to consulting, conducting screening, outside monitoring & investigating and so on. Experts often come from Academies or people with specialized skills and esteemed social status. Somehow, in practice, there seems no consensus with the empowerment of their involvement in terms of legality. Our study manages to look into this issue in two separated field, i.e. Administrative law and Criminal Law. We further explore any explicit relationship between different cooperating or so called participating types with their following legal effect in terms of these two different laws. Besides, we take German and Japan as two examples to analyze their current practice from the point of view of Comparative Law. Owing to the different view on law interpretation, it would be violate law stableness. We are inclined to propose proper legislation, instead of striving to re-define or solve that long lasting dilemma.