論公務員依違法命令所為之職務行為

On Issue of Executing Illegal Orders of the Officials

蔡聖偉(Sheng-Wei Tsai)

《臺大法學論叢》 37卷1期 (2008/03) Pp. 165-223

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2008.37.01.04

摘要

當職務命令違法時，下級公務員一方面必須面對上級的命令，另一方面又必須依法行事，因此陷入了兩難的困境。有鑑於犯罪成立要件中「違法性」這個要素的任務之一，是在於消弭不同法領域間的衝突，所以在思考如何解決上述的問題時，也必須一併斟酌公法上的設計（關於命令拘束力的認定標準以及異議程序）。
首先，只有具拘束力的命令才會形成服從義務。當一個命令違法時，並不必然會失去公法上的拘束力，而只有明顯違法的命令才不具拘束力。在命令不具拘束力的情形，既然下級公務員在公法上並沒有執行這種命令的義務，那麼執行此種命令的行為在刑法上自然也就不能夠阻卻違法。至於那些違法但仍具拘束力的命令，則還是會對於下級公務員形成服從義務。此時下級公務員便是處於法律義務相衝突的情況。於此，應適用義務衝突的處理規則，衡量服從義務與依法行為的義務在具體個案中孰輕孰重。
而在利益衡量之前，必須先檢視公務員法上的行為規範。倘若下級公務員對於命令的適法性有所懷疑，並且也依照公務員法上的相關規定提出了異議，但其上級長官仍維持原命令時，下級公務員便還是負有執行該命令的義務，其執行命令的職務行為便得依刑法第21條第2項阻卻違法。這是基於刑法補充性或是法秩序評價一致性的考量所導出之必然結果。相反的，若行為人並未提出異議，那麼就只有當服從義務在具體個案中優於合法行為之義務時，其行為始得阻卻違法。最後，該項但書的「明知條款」應屬對於此一阻卻違法事由之主觀要件的特別規定，亦即只要行為人「非明知」命令違法，即屬具備本項的主觀阻卻違法意思。

關鍵字

公務員 ； 命令 ； 職務行為 ； 服從義務 ； 異議義務 ； 違法性 ； 阻卻違法事由 ； 義務衝突 ； 法秩序一體性 ； 主觀阻卻違法要素 ； 減免罪責事由

並列摘要

An official may commit a crime while executing an order from the superior officer. If the order is legal either in form or in substance, the official may justify his act by applying Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of R.O.C. Criminal Code. However, if the order is illegal, it is questionable whether the official can make the same assertion.
In Germany, scholars have published quite a few dissertations to discuss this issue in depth. Generally speaking, there are two opposing theories which have approximately equal strength: Justification Theory and Excuse Criminal Liability Theory. The bases of both theories are quiet worthy to be introduced. Furthermore, at the stage of determination of justification, the criminal scholars traditionally emphasize the principle of ”Consistency of Legal Order.” It means that different laws, including civil laws, criminal laws and administrative laws, should make the same decision on the legality of the same conduct. However, this principle has been gradually revised in Germany in these days. Therefore, the issue regarding the legality of an official's execution of an illegal order can be a touchstone of the above-mentioned principle.
This research project will try to clarify the influence of other areas of laws in determining the criminal legality in theory. Nevertheless, when we interpret Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of Criminal Code, the duty of obedience and the elements of excuse liability provided by the Officials Act cannot be neglected either based on the principle of ”Consistency of Legal Order” or ”the measure of last resort” of criminal law. If we compare Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of Criminal Code with Article 2 of Officials Service Act, Article 16 of Officials Protection Act, Article 29 of Bill of Officials Norm drafted by Executive Yuan, or Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of Administrative Sanction Act, we can discover the differences between criminal law and administrative laws regarding the elements of excuse liability an official. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the statues, regulations and theories of administrative laws while drawing up a harmonious standard to be followed by officials regarding Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of Criminal Code. At last, this study project will also discuss how to interpret the phrase of ”knowing” of Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of Criminal Code to prevent the conflicting with the general subjective element of Justification.

並列關鍵字

officials amtsträger ； order weisung, befehl ； execution ； duty of obedience gehorsamspflicht ； ground of legal justification rechtfertigungsgründe ； ground of excuse entschuldigungsgründe ； conflict of duties pf

參考文獻

王振興(1991)。刑法總則實用（上）。台北:王振興。

甘添貴(1988)。刑法總論講義。台北:甘添貴。

甘添貴、謝庭晃(2006)。捷徑刑法總論。台北:甘添貴。

李茂生()。,未出版。

李惠宗(2007)。行政法要義。台北:五南。