賄賂罪之對價關係及證明難題：評最高法院102年度臺上字第4887號刑事判決與其相關裁判

Quid pro quo' Relation of Bribery and Problems of Its Proof Practice

本文以一則最高法院的近期判決為討論對象，檢討刑法及貪污治罪條例賄賂罪刑事責任的相關議題，尤其著重於賄賂罪「對價關係」的法律性質、實質內涵及認定標準。筆者認為：
一、對價關係構成賄賂罪的實質不法內涵，其型態包括單方意思表達型的要求、行求型賄賂，以及產生意思合致型的期約、收受及交付賄賂；
二、後兩者內容須以特定職務之執行與不正利益間形成交換關係的意思合致為前提，前者則至少要對於不正利益有以特定職務行為作為交換的期待意思表達；
三、在訴訟上判斷對價關係時，以占多數類型的收受賄賂為例，不能僅以公務員事實上已收受利益而反推有對價關係，毋寧應暫時不考量收受利益之事實及證據，單從雙方有無意思表示合意的相關證據為判斷中心，據以認定意思的對價關係是否存在，除非無法形成上述對價心證時，但其證明程度已經達到相對明確程度時，才能例外考量收受的事實，用以補強原有的心證缺陷，從而綜合全部事實以判斷有無對價關係。
基於這三點看法，詳細分析最高法院判決內容，針砭其見解利弊得失。

This article aims to analyze the criminal liability of bribery in Taiwan's Criminal Code, especially the topic of 'quid pro quo' Relation, including its legal character, material conception and criterion. The author argues that the quid pro quo relation constitutes the punishment ground of bribery. In addition, to achieve the quid pro quo relation, there must be agreement between provider and public officer that illegal interests are given for a specific performance of public affair. Lastly, as the court establishes it, this relation cannot be inferred only because the public officer has received illegalinterests. From the three perspectives, the author will review a Taiwan's Supreme Court Decision and discuss if the Decision has faults in fact-finding and reasoning.