文章詳目資料

犯罪與刑事司法研究

  • 加入收藏
  • 下載文章
篇名 貪污治罪條例侵占罪與刑法業務侵占罪之判決分析
卷期 9
並列篇名 An analysis of sentenctng on embezzlemfnts of anti-corruption statue and criminal code
作者 紀致光
頁次 055-084
關鍵字 貪污侵占威嚇罪責相當原則比例原則corruptionembezzlementdeterrencethe principle of appropriateness between offense and penaltythe principle of proportionality
出刊日期 200709

中文摘要

為了防制貪瀆犯罪,政府特別訂立貪污治罪條例,將公務員觸犯侵占、竊盜、詐欺及圖利等罪之刑責大幅提高,希望藉由處罰的加重來威嚇貪瀆犯罪,但實際的效果如何,是否會產生不良的影響,則較少關注。本文對88、89 年起訴之貪污治罪條例侵占罪及刑法業務侵占罪判決分析後,發現對於貪污治罪條例之侵占罪,法院常援引各種減刑規定予以輕判,使大多數的判決皆低於該罪名之最低法定刑。而當國家及被告皆投入更多資源於貪瀆案件的訴訟時,訴訟時間會延長,實質定罪率會降低,對貪瀆犯罪之威嚇效果產生不良影響。另一方面,處罰特別加重後,會因為法院是否引用減刑規定,被告是否有足夠資力選任辯護人,以及輕微案件認定標準之缺陷等因素,使判決產生不公平的結果。大法官會議解釋第476 號及第551 號解釋要求以特別立法加重刑責者,應符合「罪責相當原則」及「比例原則」,觀諸本文對判決之分析,現行貪污治罪條例有違反該兩項原則之虞。因此,在刑法公務侵占罪已足以規範該類犯罪下,廢除特別法之規定而回歸刑法,應是可考量之方向。

英文摘要

The Anti-Corruption Statute (1963) is a special law enacted by our government to combat corruption. According to the statute, the punish of work-related embezzlement, larceny, fraud, and illegally profiting committed by the public official is substantially increased to deter corruption, but the effect is not clear.Prosecuted cases of embezzlement in the period 1999 and 2000 were taken as sample to examine the effect. Results show that courts usually cite varied commutation regulations so that the pronounced term of imprisonment substantially lower than the minimum term stipulated in applicable laws. When the defendants and government put more funds and efforts to the lawsuits, the trial lengths are prolonged, the conviction rates are lowered. After all, the deterrence to corruption is less efficient. On the other hand, resulting from the defect of some commutation regulations and the difference of defendant’s finance support, some judges are unfair.According to the interpretations No.476 and 551 of the Council of Justice of the
Constitution Court, if special criminal laws place special restrictions on people’s basic rights, the content of which shall conform to ‘the principle of appropriateness between offense and penalty’ and ‘the principle of proportionality’. The Anti-Corruption Statute doesn’t seem to fit these principles very well. Because the Criminal Code is enough to regulate the work-related embezzlement committed by the public official, it is better choice to abolish special regulation in the Anti-Corruption Statute and return to the Criminal Code.Keywords : graffiti,adolescent deviance, adolescent subculture.

相關文獻