只追究自然人刑事責任為刑法上根深蒂固的概念，然而，近代以來為了有效 追訴與法人事業或業務活動有關之犯罪，世界各國陸續完成法人犯罪之刑事立 法，並將之視為預防法人犯罪之有效手段，但法人是否具有犯罪能力，以及以何 種方式犯罪之問題一直有爭議；我國的發展也不例外。現今遍及於各法律領域已 有數量可觀的法人犯罪規定，不論是這些規定本身，或是其適用，是否符合刑法 基本原理，均為不容忽視的問題。 目前，對各法人犯罪立法之相關討論，不但個別零散，且相當有限，本文因 此整理各種立法模式，並進行系統性分析，以期掌握其全貌與發展脈絡。本文研 究後發現，過去以來，我國實務同時運用轉嫁責任與自己責任來解釋與適用現有 各類法人犯罪規定。近期，法人與自然人可以各自獨立犯罪的自己行為責任理論 逐漸成為實務上主流意見，顯示我國實務在一定程度上正面肯定法人之犯罪能 力。而從進一步分析中瞭解到，現行法人犯罪立法中之自然人與法人兩罰模式， 最符合大法官釋字第687 號解釋所揭示之自己行為責任原則。 本文遂以現行立法中之兩罰模式為基礎，透過罪責原則與預防理論觀點之補 充，整理出兩種未來可供考慮的法人犯罪立法模式：一為垂直兩罰模式，二為平 行兩罰模式。由於此兩種立法模式均是對法人自己所為的行為進行非難與譴責， 其背後需要透過法人正犯概念以落實法人自己責任原則。本文接著說明，儘管以 法人為行為主體之犯罪與自然人犯罪之型態並非全然一致，法人犯罪仍具有社會 倫理非難性。在此前提下，則可進一步探討滿足何種要件時，始可稱為法人自己 的行為而成立法人正犯。本文在參考組織體行為理論與組織體罪責理論後，嘗試 建構組織體正犯概念，提出法人的政策或文化，以及管理缺失，作為判斷法人是 否成立故意或過失正犯的依據。最後，透過一則涉及環境犯罪之實際案例來說明 如何應用組織體正犯理論來評價法人的行為。

Traditional criminal culpability is premised on the personal fault relating to natural persons. To cope with corporate crime connected with business activities, many countries (including Taiwan) have introduced corporate crime legislations attributing criminal responsibility to legal entities. “Can corporate bodies commit crimes?” and “How do they do this?” are the difficult questions to answer. Due to these difficulties, Taiwan corporate crime provisions contain dubious forms of corporate liability. It demonstrates the need to examine these legislations and their applications from the basic principles of criminal law. This Article begins with the reviews of current criminal administrative offenses provisions in light of the judicial interpretations and literatures. As the studies demonstrate, courts have gradually relied on the principle of personal fault liability to interpret these provisions. However, the question how legal entities commit offenses by itself is neglected. After assessing all types of legislations, this Article recommends that the dual corporate liability mode which punishes legal person and natural person is most consistent with the principle of personal fault liability declared in J.Y. Interpretation No. 687. Under present law, two forms of liability are best fitted for corporate crime. One (vertical mode) is the legislation which requires the initial commission of an offense by a natural person. The other (horizontal mode) is the legislation which mainly designed to deal with crimes committed by legal entities itself. The two forms of liability discussed are premised on the personal fault of legal entity as principle offender. Accordingly, this Article proceeds to develop the concept of principle offender on the basis of the theories of organizational behavior and organizational blameworthiness which view corporations as culpability-bearing agents in their own right and regard corporate policy, culture and management failure as potential sources of intentional and negligent culpability. Finally, this Article discusses a corporate environmental crime case to illustrate how to apply the theories of organizational offender.