論公務員洩密罪 －以公務機密及揭弊行為為核心

Crimes on Disclosuring Classified Information by Government Officials-A Study Focuses on Official Classified Information and Whistle-blowing

江珮瑱(PEI-TIEN CHIANG)

指導教授 ： 曾淑瑜

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2016年)

摘要

刑法第132條係以洩漏國防以外秘密罪作為其規範核心，立法者對於本罪行為客體雖然係採取「國防」與「國防以外」之二分模式，然此種區分卻是略嫌粗糙。又，何種事項屬於國防以外之秘密，在實務上不僅存有截然不同地解釋，亦無相當判斷標準可資遵循，使得刑法第132條洩漏公務機密罪之規範，存有相當多的爭議問題而有待釐清。並且，當一項機密資訊同時具備二種以上之機密類型時，其應如何妥適地適用洩漏秘密之相關規範(如國家機密、國防秘密等)，也不無疑義。準此，本文擬以洩漏公務機密罪為核心，先予說明各種機密類型間之關係，進而就其適用上可能面臨的爭議問題予以研究，復再對刑法第132條所存有之相關規範問題進行探討。
鼓勵公務員勇於站出揭發內部弊端為現今國際社會潮流，當公務員為揭弊行為時，勢必需要提出相當之公務資訊，而是類公務資訊之部分卻又極有可能屬機密之文書、資訊等。對此，許多先進國家如美國、紐西蘭均為此訂立揭弊者保護等相關法規，使公務員之揭弊行為在規範上得以有所遵循。反觀我國揭弊者保護仍屬草案階段，為免公務員因揭弊行為與保密義務間之衝突而構成刑法第132條洩漏公務機密罪，本文在現行法規制度下，嘗試提出數種解決方式，並對揭弊者保護法之訂立提出建議。

關鍵字

機密 ； 公務機密 ； 刑法第132條 ； 國防以外秘密 ； 揭弊行為 ； 揭弊者保護法

並列摘要

The crime on disclosing classified information relating to the circumstances other than national defense is the basis of the Article 132 of the Criminal Code. Even though legislators categorize the subject crime by “national defense” and "other than national defense", this distinction is ambiguous. Moreover, not only do judges have varying opinions of what constitutes as “other than national defense” they also lack of a definite, standard criterion to follow in the judicial system, thus making the execution of Article 132 of the Criminal highly controversial Furthermore, it will be a problem of how to suitable applying crime on disclosing classified information (i.e. state classified information, national classified information) when the case fits in both categories. Therefore, this study intends to focus on the crime on disclosing classified information by first explaining the relationship among the various types of classified information, followed by researching the controversies of their application, and then discussing the relevant regulation of the article 132 of the Criminal Code.
Encouraging the government official to expose internal malpractice has become an international norm nowadays. When a government official whistle-blowing, he or she must to provide some government information, which likely pertains to classified documents or information. In this regard, many developed countries such as the United States and New Zealand have legislated the Whistleblower Protection Act, so the whistleblowers have a standard procedure to follow. On the contrary, the Republic of China’s Whistleblower Protection Act is still just a draft. In order to avoid confliction between the government officials of the whistle-blowing and confidentiality obligations under the article 132 of the Criminal Code, this study proposes several solutions and suggestions of legislating of Whistleblower Protection Act under the current laws and regulations.

並列關鍵字

whistle-blowing ； classified information ； government officials

參考文獻

6、 林明鏘，公務機密與行政資訊公開，臺大法學論叢，第23卷第1期，1993年12月。

12、 胡至沛，建立我國弊端揭發人制度可行性之研究：利害關係人的觀點，中華行政學報，第7期，2010年6月。

21、 楊戊龍，美國聯邦政府保護揭弊公務員之制度與發展，政治科學論叢，第29期，2006年6月。

26、 蔡墩銘，刑法關於軍事秘密之保護，法令月刊，第36卷第9期，1985年9月。

1、 最高法院57年度台上字第946號刑事判決。