貪污犯罪的處罰基礎與立法檢討－－以賄賂行為為中心

本文的研究目的在於探究貪污犯罪的處罰基礎，並對相關的刑事立法提出檢討建議。不同於我國文獻上對於貪污犯罪的檢討大多僅著重於貪污所導致的濫權行為，本文嘗試以一種「賄賂型觀點」來重新詮釋貪污犯罪的處罰基礎，亦即將貪污行為的非難重心著重於賄賂行為本身，藉由分析賄賂行為的可非難性與影響來說明貪污犯罪實質的不法內涵。　　在檢驗學理上的相關解釋之後，本文採取一種「腐化的觀點」認為，賄賂行為的可非難性是來自決定權的交易行為會排擠權力原先由非市場基準所表彰的重要價值。當人們選擇用金錢來分配那些財貨或資源時，就代表人們以市場基準來衡量與分配那些財貨或資源，而排擠原先所使用的非市場基準，並連同割捨掉那些非市場基準所反映出的重要價值，使得這些非市場基準受到腐化。此外，本文從社會民主國的觀點探討國家的任務與定位，並分析國家與自由市場之間的界限，說明當特定權力的行使是為了追求公共利益的時候，國家有必要維護這項權力不被市場入侵，造成富人具有更大的優勢以取得重要的社會資源。據此，本文提出三項「可罰的貪污屬性」，以作為立法論與解釋論上可供檢驗的標準，來判斷各領域的貪污行為是否有動用刑法加以管制的必要與正當性。　　接著，本文嘗試以上述詮釋貪污的賄賂型觀點來對2018年法務部提出的刑法修正草案進行相關立法檢討，並以公務員賄賂罪、公領域的斡旋賄賂行為以及商業賄賂行為作為主要的分析對象。在公務員賄賂罪方面，本文肯定其在立法論上的可罰性，但對於草案將公務員賄賂罪分為基本職務賄賂罪與加重的違背職務賄賂罪的立法模式持保留態度。從賄賂型觀點來看，無論公務員與他人約定的對價是職務上行為或違背職務之行為，該不法約定的可非難性都是在於公務員行使職務上決定權的非市場基準受到排擠，因此本文認為立法上並無區分職務上行為或違背職務之賄賂行為之必要性；倘若公務員因收受利益而實行違背職務之行為，則可考量其實際上產生的濫權損害而加重其刑。　　在公領域的斡旋賄賂行為方面，本文認為中間人對於主管事務公務員的影響力與公務員所握有的職務上決定權不同，並不容易證明其稀少性與獨佔性，且此種影響力本身亦與個人基本權之間不具有重要關聯。因此以賄賂型觀點來看，公領域的斡旋賄賂行為在立法論上並無處罰的必要性。反之，若從著重於防止主管事務公務員被不當地施以影響力而導致濫權的觀點來說，只要公務員的濫權行為成立犯罪，施以影響力的中間人也會連帶成立教唆犯，而與中間人進行影響力交易的一方也可能構成連鎖共犯；若該濫權行為於現況下不成立犯罪，則應由立法者考量是否將其入罪即可，無須另行制定新法來前置處罰影響力交易行為。　　在私領域的商業賄賂行為方面，本文認為絕大多數的商業賄賂行為並不符合資源稀少性、獨佔性以及與個人基本權具重要關聯的貪污屬性，因此在立法論上不具有處罰的必要性。然而，倘若某些私領域的企業涉及某些重要社會資源的分配，且其業務性質具有追求公共利益之目的而與公眾利益具有高度關聯性時，即可能例外地符合可罰的貪污屬性。此時立法者應透過個別立法的方式，禁止具有此種公共屬性的私人企業的賄賂行為，以防止其決定權的執行基準遭受市場基準的排擠，而破壞公共利益的追求。

關鍵字

貪污；賄賂；對價關係；公務員賄賂罪；影響力交易；公領域斡旋賄賂；商業賄賂

並列摘要

The purpose of this article is to explore the basis of punishment for corruption crimes and to make recommendations for review of relevant criminal legislation. Different from the literature review of corruption crimes in Taiwan, most of which only focus on the abuse of power caused by corruption, this article attempts to reinterpret the basis of punishment for corruption crimes with a “perspective of bribery”; that is to say, the condemnation of corruption focuses on the bribery itself. By analyzing the condemnation and impact of bribery, the substantive illegal connotation for corruption crimes can be explained. After examining the relevant theoretical explanations, this article adopts a kind of “view of corruption”, which means the condemnation of bribery is that the transaction of decision-making power will crowd out the important value of power that was originally commended by non-market benchmarks. When people choose to use money to allocate those goods or resources, it means that people use market benchmarks to measure and allocate those goods or resources, and to replace the non-market benchmarks originally be used, discard the importance of those non-market benchmarks, and corrupt these non-market benchmarks consequently. In addition, this article explores the task and positioning of the state from the perspective of a social democratic state, and analyzes the boundary between the state and the free market, and shows that when a specific power is exercised for the pursuit of public interest, it is necessary for the state to protect this power from being deprived of the invasion of market, which has given the rich a greater advantage to obtain important social resources. Based on this perspective, this article proposes three “punishable corruption attributes” as testable standards in legislative and interpretive theory to judge whether corruption in various fields is necessary and justifiable to be controlled by criminal law. After that, based on the above perspective of bribery interpretting corruption, this article attempts to review the relevant legislation on the 2018 Criminal Law Amendment Draft proposed by the Ministry of Justice, and to take bribery of civil servants, mediation bribery in the public domain, and commercial bribery as the main analysis objects. Regarding the bribery crime of civil servants, this article affirms its legislative criminal liability, but has reservations about the legislative model that the draft divides the bribery crime of civil servants into basic bribery crimes and aggravated bribery crimes. From the perspective of bribery, regardless of whether the consideration agreed upon by a civil servant and another person is an act of duty or an act that violates his duty, the condemnation of the illegal agreement is that the non-market basis of the civil servant's power to determine the position is excluded. Therefore, this article believes that there is no need to distinguish the Crime of Bribery for Official Duties between the Crime of Bribery for a Breach of Official Duties; if a civil servant commits a behavior that violates his duty practically, it can be considered to aggravate the punishment depending on the actual abuse of power and other damage. In terms of mediation and bribery in the public domain, this article argues that the influence of intermediaries on civil servants in charge of affairs is different from the decision-making power held by civil servants. It is not only hard to prove its scarcity and exclusivity, but also there is no important connection between the influence and the basic rights of the individual. Therefore, from the perspective of bribery, there is no need to punish mediation and bribery in the public domain in terms of legislation. Conversely, from the point of view of focusing on preventing civil servants in charge from being improperly exerted influence and leading to abuse of power, as long as the abuse of power by civil servants constitutes a crime, the influential intermediary will also form an abettor. A party who trades in influence with an intermediary may also constitute a chain accomplice; if the abuse of power does not constitute a crime under the current circumstances, the legislator should consider whether to criminalize it, and there is no need to formulate a new law to pre-punish Trading in Influence. Regarding commercial bribery in the private sector, this article believes that the vast majority of commercial bribery does not conform to the scarcity, exclusivity, and corruption attributes that are importantly related to the basic rights of individuals. Therefore, there is no need for punishment in legislation. However, if certain private sector is related to the distribution of certain important social resources, and their business nature has the purpose of pursuing public interests and is highly related to the public interest, it may exceptionally meet the punishable corruption attributes. At this time, legislators should prohibit bribery of private companies with such public attributes separately to prevent their decision-making power from being supplanted by market benchmarks and undermining the pursuit of public interests.

並列關鍵字

Corruption ； Bribery ； The “Quid Pro Quo” Relation ； Crime of Bribery for Official Duties ； Trading in Influence ； bribery in the public domain ； Commercial Bribery