請託行為與貪污犯罪──評最高法院110年度臺上大字第5217號

A Review on Grand Chamber’s Ruling No. 5217 of 2021 of Taiwan’s Supreme Court Social, Cultural, and Legal Causes and Improvement of Sentencing Bias

本文討論民意代表收受不正利益，而關說行政機關或公家具有實質支配力之公司重要成員，而請託作成對特定私人有利之決定時，是否構成刑責之問題。近期最高法院因受到矚目的立法委員受賄請託案，對於上述案例作成重要的大法庭裁定，本文即以大法庭裁定為中心，主要討論兩則罪名：公務員職務行為賄賂罪，以及非主管監督事務圖利罪。
前罪的爭點集中於應該如何定性民意代表的職務上行為，大法庭採取較為寬鬆的看法，只要民意代表本於職務或職位之影響力而請託他人，且有形式上公務性質，即認定為職務上行為，但本文認為此種見解過度擴大職位的影響力，且形式上公務性質的定義不明，不僅現實上難以適用，更有牴觸罪刑法定原則之嫌，故本文主張應該以民意代表固有職務為中心，具體觀察請託對象身分及請託事務是否為民意代表可得質詢、監督、建言的範圍。
後罪爭點則聚焦於如何判定請託行為人利用身分關係而犯非主管監督事務罪的「違法」標準，大法庭採取擴充至公務員行政倫理規範的看法，但本文認為此項見解誤會法律與行政倫理界限，較合理的看法應該從請託事務本身是否違法進行判斷。

This article examines whether it constitutes a criminal offense when elected representatives accept improper benefits and lobby government agencies or key members of public entities with substantial decision-making power in favor of specific private individuals. Recently, Taiwan’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on a bribery case involving a prominent legislator. This article focuses on the Supreme Court’s decision and discusses two primary issues: bribery of public officials in the course of their duties and the offense of benefiting from non-supervisory administrative affairs.
The central issue in the first charge revolves around how the actions of elected representatives should be classified within the scope of their official duties. The Supreme Court has taken a more lenient stance, asserting that if elected representatives use the influence of their position to solicit others, and if the action has a public nature, it can be considered part of their official duties. However, this article argues that such an interpretation overly broadens the concept of“influence of their position”and lacks clarity regarding what constitutes a“public nature.”This not only creates difficulties in interpretation but also raises concerns about violating the principle of legality in criminal law. Therefore, the article suggests that the focus should be on the inherent duties of elected representatives, specifically examining whether the solicitation pertains to matters within the realm of their authority related to questioning, oversight, and advisory functions.
The second charge primarily concerns determining the standard of“illegality”when individuals use their relationships to benefit from non-supervisory administrative affairs. The Supreme Court has extended this standard to include the administrative ethics regulations governing public servants. However, this article argues that this interpretation confuses the boundaries between legal requirements and administrative ethics. A more reasonable approach would involve assessing whether the solicited activity itself is illegal.