| 英文摘要 |
The second sentence of Article 10(2) of Criminal Code provided that: “The term ‘public official’ means the following persons ... 1. Those who empowered with legal function and power ... engaged in public affairs in accordance with law,” also called “authorized public official.” Those scholars and experts without the identity of public official, once been invited as a Committee members and accepted, would be deemed as “engaged in public affairs” and “empowered with legal function and power”, becoming a “one day public official,” and had the possibility of bearing criminal responsibility. We will explain that, when the Criminal Code was amended, it refers the related provision of criminal code of German and Japan, but the reason for amendment didn’t mentioned whether external scholars and experts be or not the “authorized public official.” However, the reason for amendment did mentioned procurement personnel included in the authorized public official; therefore, Supreme Court decisions extended the scope of procurement personnel to evaluation committee members, including external scholars and experts. We will try to classify different committees, elaborating that external scholars and experts in different committees have different decision-making power. We argues that, if external scholars and experts have no substantial, independent decision-making power, they should not be deemed as having legal function and power, and should not be deemed as “authorized public official.” We will use a true court case about a member of urban planning committee to elaborate our theory, and review this case.
|
