論授權公務員概念

On the Concept of “Authorized Public Servant” in Criminal Law

刑法第10條第2項修正後，關於刑法公務員定義，通說認為可分為「身分公務員」、「授權公務員」以及「委託公務員」三種類型。相較於前者從所屬機關組織之觀點，後兩者則從執行國家任務之功能性觀點劃定公務員概念之界線。然而，近年來對於所謂「其他依法令從事於公共事務，而具有法定職務權限者」之授權公務員概念的界定，不但在學理與實務間形成不小的鴻溝，判決間亦常見齟齬。可以說，如何認定法定職務權限，以及如何區分公共事務與單純私經濟行為等判準仍未臻明確。本文以最高法院歷年對授權公務員之認定標準為主軸，透過判決解釋之分類與歸納分析，主張刑法第10條第2項第1款前後段並沒有區分成「身分公務員」「授權公務員」兩種不同類型的公務員之必要。無論是該款前段或後段，都是同時具有組織上意義以及功能上意義的公務執行者。並且，本文贊同「公務員概念相對化」之想法，認為應根據不同的規範目的，來思考服務單位功能屬性以及職務內容之限定。

The definition of public servant in Criminal Law in Taiwan has been amended in 2005 (Article 10 sec 2). According to the new definition, the term ”public servant” means the following persons: (1) those who empowered with legal function and power serve an organization of the state or a local autonomous body, or (2) those who, engaged in public affairs, are empowered with legal function and power. And (3) Those who, engaged in the public affairs within the authority of the entrusting organization, are delegated by an organ of the state or a local autonomous body. There is, of course, a considerable agreement that the new definition of public servant can be classified into three types: a person who is (1) employed in a authority body, (2) authorized by laws and ordinances, or (3) delegated from authorities. However, scholars’ and practitioners’ opinions still vary when adapting these definitions into different cases, especially dealing with the second one. This article analyzes the Supreme Court’s opinions of “authorized public servant”, and argues that those who engage in public affairs with legal function and power as public servants must have been not only authorized by laws and ordinances but also employed in public bodies.