論法人犯罪之立法正當性與理論基礎

Research on the Legitimacy and Theoretical Basis of Corporate Criminal Liability

鍾亞達(Ya-Ta, Chung)

指導教授 ： 王皇玉

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.01607

摘要

法人是否有刑事責任能力？
在民法、行政法之領域中，法人向來均應為其本身之「行為」負擔其責任，而這樣的責任可能是直接來自個別的自然人之行為，例如為其員工之侵權行為連帶負責、為董事長代表法人所簽訂的契約負責；也可能無法找到一個個別自然人的行為，可是整個法人所作成的行為就是可能要負擔相當之責任，例如砂石公司排放之廢水總量超出法所容許之排放量、游泳池若未依法聘請救生員時均會受到行政罰、建築公司蓋出來的房屋若因設計不良而倒塌，公司應負擔損害賠償責任。在前開情況下，由於法人在民法、行政法上之責任能力現今已鮮少受質疑，所以我們直觀上並不會覺得這些法人所應負擔之責任有何奇怪之處。然而，就刑事責任而言，我國法上雖然已經有許多關於法人犯罪，亦即以法人為刑罰對象之條文存在，惟國內外均多有學界見解認為法人並無刑事責任能力，故反對法人犯罪之立法。
本文以為，如果直觀、武斷地認為「法人」無論如何就是不能被科以刑事責任，卻又把對法人科以民事、行政責任一事看作稀鬆平常，其實是十分吊詭的一件事，畢竟民事責任（例如懲罰性賠償金制度）與行政罰責任中，並非不具有「處罰」的意味存在，所以如果要把刑事責任與民事、行政責任截然二分，尚難謂為合理。是故，在全球各國紛紛產生法人犯罪立法之浪潮下，或許我們不應固執於大陸法系「法人無犯罪能力」之傳統，而是應積極尋找對法人科以刑事責任之正當性基礎究竟何在。
本論文首先透過對於不同法系之多國比較法中關於法人犯罪立法部分之爬梳，概略性整理出各國法人犯罪立法之概況，再對於我國法的法人犯罪立法做出整理，並從比較法之角度對照觀察之。在前開對照觀察之後，本文以為，我國現行立法所採用之文字大致上與日本法相似，故先行援引日本實務見解所提出之「推定監督過失說」，並廢除不合理的「代罰制」規定後，或許暫時可以使我國之法人犯罪立法相對合理而無違憲之虞。
然而，本文同時亦認為，如果仍採兩罰制而將自然人行為成立犯罪作為法人犯罪成立之前提，其實並非理想之法人犯罪制度設計。參考義大利、美國、澳洲、日本之立法與學說見解後，本文歸納出法人以其「組織體」而行為並負擔責任之大方向，認為法人若有犯罪行為產生即係由於其組織體失靈，並且提出以「法令遵循制度」之實施、貫徹作為法人的注意義務之結論。一方面建立相對合理之法人犯罪責任基礎，另一方面也希望透過該責任基礎之提出，勾勒法人犯罪立法較為合理之藍圖，期能提供若干年後法人犯罪立法上之參考。

關鍵字

法人犯罪 ； 法人刑事責任能力 ； 組織缺陷 ； 法令遵循 ； 法令遵循計畫

並列摘要

ABSTRACT
Is a juridical person (legal person), such as a corporate, liable in criminal law?
In the category of civil law or administrative law, a juridical person has always been considered liable for whatever it “conducts”. On one hand, the juridical person might be liable because of the behavior of single natural person. For example, in the scope of Torts, if the employee has wrongfully caused any injury to the rights of another in the performance of his duties, the employer, a juridical person, shall be jointly liable to make compensation; it also is liable for any contracts that is signed by its chairman of other representatives. On the other hand, the juridical person might also be liable for the behavior conducted by its whole organization. For example, a construction company shall be liable for the collapse of building caused by its defective house designation or construction. Therefore, few people would doubt the civil or administrative liability of juridical persons.
However, when it comes to criminal liability, no matter foreign scholars or scholars in Taiwan, many indicate that juridical person shall have no criminal liability at all, despite the fact that plenty articles in Taiwan and other countries have been set up to criminally punish juridical persons.
This essay indicates that, whether a juridical person is criminally liable or not, the conclusion shall be based on the review of the juridical basis of juridical persons’ liability, not an intuitive reaction. This essay begins with the review of the nature of juridical person. Then, through the reference of the legislation of other countries, such as America, England, Australia, German, Italy, China and Japan, this essay finds out that current legislation in Taiwan is inadequate and might violates the Constitution. In the short term, the legislation shall repeal the laws that punish only the representatives of a juridical person, and the jurisdiction shall refers to the theory basis used by Japan jurisdiction, which presumes the negligence of juridical person’s supervision. In this way, the criminal liability of juridical person might be comparatively reasonable.
Furthermore, still this essay do not consider the aforementioned short term solution the best way of juridical person’s criminal liability. Taking reference of Italy, America, Australia legislation and the criminal theory of Japan scholars, this essay indicates that considering the juridical person being liable for the behavior conducted by its whole “organization” is the only solution for the theoretical basis of corporate criminal liability. Thus, the practice of “compliance system” shall be the standard to judge whether the juridical person’s conduct is committed intentionally or negligently. In the long term, the legislation in Taiwan shall amend the laws to comply with aforementioned theory basis, or else the laws might all be invalid for not being theoretically reasonable and violate the Constitution.

並列關鍵字

legal person crime ； corporate criminal liability ； organizational misconduct ； legal compliance ； compliance program

參考文獻

林山田（1990），論法人或人合團體之違法及其制裁，法令月刊，41卷10期，頁143-145。

林東茂（2003），刑法綜覽，2版，台北：學林

許靖儀（2012），法人犯罪制裁方式之走向──從最高法院100年度台上字第1862號談起，刑事法雜誌，56卷1期，頁1-24。

蔡蕙芳（2011），著作權法第一○一條第一項執行業務兩罰規定之適用問題──評最高法院九十二年度台上字第二七二○號刑事判決，月旦裁判時報，12期，頁59-66。

蘇俊雄（1995），刑法總論（I），初版，台北：自刊。