圖利案件低定罪影響因素之探討

Mercenary Crime Cases：A Research on Influential Factors of Low Conviction Rate

陳耀輝(Yao-Hui Chen)

指導教授 ： 許春金

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/犯罪學研究所/碩士(2011年)

摘要

本研究以98、99年間，觸犯貪污治罪條例第六條第一項第四款、第五款圖利罪嫌之高等法院判決書共80件為基礎，以內容分析法，結合對法務部調查局專責從事貪瀆犯罪調查實務工作，具10年以上辦案經驗之調查官8人作深度訪談，運用質性研究之方式，從圖利罪法條構成要件分析、偵查機關案件偵辦之經驗、蒐證上的困難等，探討在偵、審層面造成圖利案件低定罪之影響因素。
從判決書之分析發現：合議庭法官判決圖利罪被告無罪的理由，按件數之多寡順序，分別為被告未有違背「法令」、被告不具圖利的主觀犯意、被告所圖非「不法」利益、被告未因而獲得不法利益、被告未具「公務員」身分等，對於前述圖利罪之犯罪構成要件，檢調之蒐證，難形成有罪之心證；現行法官的見解傾向於，圖利罪規範違背之「法令」，並不包括機關內部抽象規定之行政規則或僅對機關內部人員規範之職權命令；公務員服務法、宣誓條例、公職人員利益衝突迴避法等涉及道德性、一般性之法律，並非圖利罪規範違背法令之範圍；被告犯罪之主觀犯意，檢調需在偵查中以具體證據證明，不可僅憑臆測；廠商施作工程或付出勞務所得之利潤，縱以不法方法取得之標案，仍不得據以認定為不法利益，仍需扣除合理利潤，再計算利益是否不法，前述見解，與現行偵查面的檢調機關具某程度之認知差異，致形成法官無罪之判決。
從調查官訪談發現，圖利罪之低定罪率，主要是該罪為貪瀆犯罪之概括規定，在公務員之違法行為不該當受賄、舞弊、侵占、詐欺等具體犯罪行為時，始論被告行為有無圖利，故其構成要件模糊，首先，與其他貪瀆罪一樣，公務員身分認定上，刑法雖於94年間有所修正，以身分公務員、職權公務員及受委託公務員來定義，惟實務認定上仍有模糊空間；再來公務員違背法令之「法令」並未列舉，中央及地方之法規命令繁多，難以具體的認定被告行為是否違背法令；公務員圖利的主觀犯意，很難靠事後蒐證去取得證據，故大多以客觀行為去推測；對於不法利益的認知分歧，有認為公務員配合廠商圍標，廠商所得之利潤均為不法利益，也有認需嚴格檢視是否係廠商之合理利潤，且圖得不法利益之金額亦無具體計算標準；在蒐證上由於近年來刑事訴訟制度的改變、圖利罪構成要件及刑法對公務員定義的修正、搜索票、監聽票核發權回歸法院等，使偵查及定罪難度增高；績效評比制度則造成案件移送浮濫，最後，圖利罪之刑罰太重，多少亦讓法官採證更嚴格及不願定罪。
綜合判決書及訪談之分析，偵審單位一致的見解認為，公務員違背法令、主觀犯意、圖得不法利益等構成要件難認定及證明，為低定罪率的主要因素，然法官認為蒐證不足亦占重要因素，惟調查官則認為蒐證已完備，低定罪除了構成要件因素外，調查局的績效制度及圖利罪的法定刑太重，致法官採證嚴格及不願定罪，才是主要因素。最後，本研究提出幾點提昇定罪率之建議，首先要檢討偵查單位績效評比制度，提高移送及起訴門檻，以改善移送案件之品質；另可思考廢除貪污治罪條例圖利罪之處罰或回歸一般刑法之規定，最後則要藉由調查單位之精緻偵查及加強與偵查及公訴檢察官聯繫，以提昇定罪率。

關鍵字

貪瀆 ； 公務員 ； 明知違背法令 ； 圖利

並列摘要

This study is based on the totaled 80 ruled cases of committing mercenary crime held in the high court. The said cases involve violation of Paragraph 4 and 5 of Item 1 of Article 6 of the Corruption Offenses Ordinance during 2009 and 2010. In the study, it adopts the methodological approach of content analysis, under which an in-depth interview is engaged on 8 investigators with investigation experience of more than 10 years in the field of dedicated investigation work under the MJIB (Investigation Bureau of Ministry of Justice) on the offenses of corruption and embezzlement. To explore the impact factors on the outcome of low crime-determining rate in the aspects of investigation and hearing, the study also engages an origin research approach aimed at the analysis of the legal requisites satisfying the mercenary crime, the experience of investigation conducted by investigation institutions, and the difficulties of evidence collection.

Judging from the ruling documents, the study finds: the ground that the judges of the full court sentenced defendants’ innocent status on the mercenary crime offenses is as follows, by the sequence order of offense frequency: due to the facts that the defendants did not violate “decrees,” the defendants did not have subjective mens rea of mercenary crime offense, what the defendants pursued for is not “illegal” interests, and the defendants did not have the status of government official, the requisites of the evidences collected by prosecutors and investigators for the above mercenary crime offenses prove insufficient for a determination of guilty status; therefore, the current perception of judges favors that the scope of mercenary crime offense violating the decrees does not include the abstract regulations within the administrative institutions like administrative regulations or only authority orders of regulating the personnel within the institutions; .the Public Service Act on Government Officials, Oath-taking Act, the Law of Public Officials avoiding Interests Conflict that involve the laws of morality and general nature do not belong to the scope of laws and regulations that regulate mercenary crime offenses; the prosecutors and investigators shall provide solid evidence(s), not conjectures, during the investigation to prove defendants’ subjective mens rea; the profits gained from the contractors’ conduct of works or labor of contractors, though acquiring via illegal bidding means, shall not be taken as illegal profits, and thus they shall be measured on whether the interests are illegal or not after deducting with reasonable share of profits. The above findings prove some degree of difference to what current prosecutors and investigators have perceived, and thus have resulted in judges’ decision of not guilty. From interviews with investigators, the study finds that the low crime-determining rate on mercenary crime offenses is mainly due to the fact that such crime is a general coverage of embezzlement offenses and when the violations of public officials shall not be taken as solid crimes like taking bribes, malpractices, embezzlement and frauds, then whether defendants’ behavior involves mercenary offense or not can be determined. Therefore, the requisites for such crime are blurred. First, like other embezzlement crime offenses, when judging the identification status of public officials, there stands substantial blurred room in the real world practice, though the Criminal Law was revised in 2005 in terms of the identification status, the authority status and the entrusted status of public officials; moreover, no description of “decrees” that public officials violate was ever made, and thus there is no way to solidly determine whether defendants’ behavior violates decrees or not since the decrees of central and local governments are too many; since the subjective mens rea on the embezzlement crime offense of public officials is very hard to verify via finding support evidence(s) afterwards, most of the cases are judged or conjectured by objective behavior; as to the difference on perceiving illegal interests, some believe that if public officials involve contractor’s bid-awarding, the profits gained by such contract shall then be taken as illegal, others believe that a careful consideration is necessary to determine whether certain part of the profits are contractor’ reasonable profits, and still no concrete calculation basis on the illegal profits of the contractor is ever existed; as to the evidence collection, recent change on the criminal lawsuit system, requisites for the embezzlement crime offenses, and revision of criminal law’s definition on public officials, issuance power of search warrant tickets and monitor warrant tickets returning to courts have increased the difficulty of investigation and crime-determining rate; performance evaluation system causes abuse cases under issuing/filing, and last but not the least too much heavy criminal punishment on mercenary crime offenses led to judges’ reluctant determination of such crime offenses by requiring more strict evidence(s).

In short, by generalizing ruling documents and interviews, the common opinions of investigation and hearing institutions conclude that public officials violate decrees, subjective mens rea, requisites for gaining illegal interests are all hard to determine and verify, and thus become the major factors to low crime-determining rate. However, judges believe that insufficient evidence(s) also serve as a significant impact. On the other hand, the investigators believe that their evidence(s) are sufficient but the performance evaluation system and heavy sentence punishment on mercenary crime offenses cause judges reluctant to determine the guilty of the crimes by requiring more evidence(s), which shall serve as major cause. Lastly, this study proposes the followings for increasing crime-determining rate: first, the investigation unit’s performance evaluation system shall be reviewed, and the criteria for transferring or filing the lawsuit case shall be raised, which are intended to better improve the quality of case transferring and filing; also, the punishment for violating the Corruption Offenses Ordinance may be considered removed or returned to the general criminal regulations. Finally, the fine investigation work of the investigation unit(s) shall be deemed necessary, together with close communications with investigation and public prosecutors. So doing shall certainly better improve the crime-determining rate.

並列關鍵字

Embezzlement ； Public Officials ； Violation of the Law ； Mercenary Crime

參考文獻

王玉民，1994《社會科學研究方法原理》。臺北：洪葉公司。

林筠軒，2007《台灣貪污犯罪形成模式之初探性研究》。桃園：元智大學資訊社會學研究所碩士論文。

高淑清，2009《質性研究的18堂課-首航初探之旅》。高雄：麗文文化事業股份有限公司。

許春金，2007《犯罪學》。臺北：三民書局。

彭明金，2001《行政程序法Q&A》。臺北：風雲公司。