| 摘要: | 我國公務員貪污犯罪之定罪率歷來皆偏低，我國甚至為達成「提高貪瀆犯罪定罪率」、「降低貪瀆犯罪犯罪」及落實「保障人權」，等三大目標而成立法務部廉政署。縱使成立廉政署，但我國貪污治罪條例在學界或是司法實務運作上充斥相當大的問題，尤其是賄賂罪之「對價關係」。本文依序就賄賂罪之構成要件及我國司法實務就賄賂罪之「對價關係」逐一探討，並藉著偵查中常見之證據蒐證方法以及廉政署調查、地檢署起訴並由法院判決之2個案件為例，來探討「對價關係」之問題。
本文第一章「緒論」，先以問題意識帶出我國貪污治罪條例之問題所在，再以研究動機與目的探討為何以「對價關係」為題，最後以研究範圍與方法本文之研究範圍與方法。
本文第二章「賄賂罪之構成要件探討」，以保護法益出發帶出各家學說之不同，進而探討賄賂罪之構成要件。
本文第三章「職務上行為與賄賂罪之聯結—對價關係」，先探討實務見解中有以各種角度來詮釋「對價關係」，再分別梳理「對價關係」之定義、定性及判斷標準，最後探討與「對價關係」有關聯之職務上行為。
本文第四章「對價關係與司法實務之證明問題」，以偵查之蒐證方法出發，再分別探討由廉政署調查，並由地檢署起訴並由法院判決之環保案及老達利案作為對照，探討司法實務上對價關係之著墨為何。
本文第五章「結論」部分，先對107年立法委員針對刑法有關賄賂罪之擬修法部分進行評析，並就本文見解進行補充，最後針對本文各章作綜整及總結。
The conviction rate for corruption crimes among civil servants in our country has always been low. Taiwan has even established the Agency Against Corruption of Ministry of Justice (AAC) to achieve three major goals, which are "increasing the conviction rate of corruption crimes", "reducing the crime of corruption crimes" and "protecting human rights". Even though AAC has been established, the Anti-Corruption Act is full of considerable problems, no matter from the perspective of academic circles or from judicial practice. The biggest issue is "quid pro quo", one of the constituent elements of bribery. This article discusses "quid pro quo" in the order of constituent elements of bribery, Taiwan’s judicial practices, and then provides a conclusion in the final chapter.
The first chapter is "Introduction". It brings out the problems of Taiwan’s Anti-Corruption Act. After research motivation and purpose , explaining why "quid pro quo" is important, and provides the research scope and methods of this article.
The second chapter is "Discussion on the constituent elements of bribery," focuses on the legal goods protected by Anti-Corruption Act and the various academic theories, and then discusses the constitutive elements of the crime of bribery.
Chapter 3 is "the connection between official conduct and the crime of bribery—"quid pro quo". First, this chapter explores the various perspectives of interpretation of the "quid pro quo" through practical opinions. Then,it sorts out the definition, characterization and judgment standards of the "quid pro quo". Finally, it discusses the relationship between the official conduct and "quid pro quo".
Chapter 4 is "the Proof of "quid pro quo" and Judicial Practice," starting from the evidence collection of investigation, and then discusses the environmental protection case and the old Dali case, investigated by the AAC, prosecuted by the District Prosecutor's Office, and adjudicated by the court. By comparison, we will discuss what judicial practices’ understanding of "quid pro quo" is.
The final chapter is "Conclusion". It starts by the analysis of the 2018 proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of China, supplements the insights of this article, and finally summarizes each chapter of this article. |
