論影響力交易罪之立法必要性—兼評刑法第134條之1立法草案

聯合國反貪腐公約係廣泛受各國所承認的反貪腐法律架構，我國亦追隨此一潮流，於2015年5月20日由總統公布「聯合國反貪腐公約施行法」。同時，該施行法要求各級政府機關應依公約規定之內容，檢討所主管之法令及行政措施；有不符公約規定者，應於本法施行後三年內，完成法令之制（訂）定、修正或廢止及行政措施改進。反貪腐公約第18條「影響力交易罪」，為我國尚未獨立制定之罪名。因此，我國乃參考公約之內容以建構該罪之構成要件，並擬於刑法修正草案第134條之1增訂此罪。然而，在增訂新罪名前，必須先理解該行為之內涵為何？以及具可罰性與處罰必要性的行為態樣為何？再從我國法制掌握，分析是否有缺失，始有進一步討論增訂該罪之必要性。況且，公約第18條之規定，指出各締約國得斟酌自我國情，有選擇增訂與否之權利。我國既非締約國，且公約條文是否與我國法制相容，亦是需尚待釐清之事項。倘若直接增訂該罪，恐有立法速斷之疑慮。因此，本文先行參考使我國欲增訂影響力交易罪之最大推手「聯合國反貪腐公約」，另參考日本、英國、法國類似該型態之刑事規定，作為我國對於影響力交易行為往後處罰規定之增訂與思考架構。其次，檢討我國反貪腐法制中，與影響力交易行為型態相似之賄賂罪與圖利罪。就前者之成罪核心「職務行為」是否能包攝此一犯罪型態？就後者，即貪污治罪條例第6條第1項第5款非主管監督事務圖利罪中，「利用身分」圖利之類型，是否亦能處理此型態，皆有釐清之必要，並一併反省我國賄賂罪「職務行為」與非主管監督事務圖利罪「利用身分」之解釋問題。最後，綜整各章節，提出是否有增訂該罪之必要，並分析我國刑法修正草案第134條之1，建構適合我國之規定內容。

關鍵字

聯合國反貪腐公約；影響力交易；斡旋賄賂；職務行為；利用身分；關說

並列摘要

Taiwan has passed the Act to Implement United Nations Convention against Convention in 2015. Since the Act requires all levels of government institutions and agencies should review the laws and regulations within their authorities according to the Convention, and “any inconsistency with the Convention should be corrected by addition, amended or abolished of the relevant legislation or improvement of the administrative measures within three years from the enforcement date of this Act”, the ministry of justice has proposed an amendment to the Criminal Code, e.g. Article §134-1, which incriminating so called “ influence trading” in accordance with Article 18 of the Convention. This dissertation starts with an introduction of comparative laws to capture the core meaning and types of punishable influence trading. Then it provides an analysis of the infringement of influence trading and the scheme model comparing with the traditional bribery and other corruptive crimes, and find it necessary to introduce new laws to regulate such misconduct. Pertaining to the concept of “influence”, the author suggests a typology of “formal influence / informal influence” rather than “real influence / supposed influence” as mentioned in the Convention. This dissertation also analyzes the similarity as well as differences between the sellers with and without an official position. Furthermore, the author also suggests a more limited liability to an influence buyer comparing to an influence seller. Finally, the author provides some comments and suggestions to the proposed §134-1 criminal law amendment.