論影響力交易罪之立法必要性──兼評刑法第134條之1立法草案

A Study of The Necessity of Legislation for Trading in Influence: A Comment on Article 134-1 of The Draft of Criminal Law

聯合國反貪腐公約係廣泛受各國所承認的反貪腐法律架構，我國亦追隨此一潮流，於2015年5月20日由總統公布「聯合國反貪腐公約施行法」。同時，該施行法要求各級政府機關應依公約規定之內容，檢討所主管之法令及行政措施；有不符公約規定者，應於本法施行後三年內，完成法令之制（訂）定、修正或廢止及行政措施之改進。反貪腐公約第18條「影響力交易罪」，為我國尚未獨立制定之罪名。因此，我國乃參考公約之內容以建構該罪之構成要件，並擬於刑法修正草案第134條之1增訂此罪。
然而，在增訂新罪名前，必須先理解該行為之內涵為何？以及具可罰性與處罰必要性的行為態樣為何？再從我國法制掌握，分析是否有缺失，始有進一步討論增訂該罪之必要性。況且，公約第18條之規定，指出各締約國得斟酌自我國情，有選擇增訂與否之權利。我國既非締約國，且公約條文是否與我國法制相容，亦是需尚待釐清之事項。倘若直接增訂該罪，恐有立法速斷之疑慮。
因此，本文參考相關立法例，以理解影響力交易行為，再進一步確認「影響力」的內涵。本文認為影響力可分為「權力性影響力」與「非權力性影響力」，並確認具可罰與處罰必要性的影響力交易行為。再比較我國賄賂罪與非主管監督事務圖利罪，而認定我國法制尚有未盡之處，有獨立增訂影響力交罪之必要。最後，分析刑法草案第134條之1，提出建議之條文內容。

Taiwan has passed the Act to Implement United Nations Convention against Convention in 2015. Since the Act requires all levels of government institutions and agencies should review the laws and regulations within their authorities according to the Convention, and“any inconsistency with the Convention should be corrected by addition, amended or abolished of the relevant legislation or improvement of the administrative measures within three years from the enforcement date of this Act”, the ministry of justice has proposed an amendment to the Criminal Code, e.g. Article§134-1, which incriminating so called“influence trading”in accordance with Article 18 of the Convention.
This dissertation starts with an introduction of comparative laws to capture the core meaning and types of punishable influence trading. Then it provides an analysis of the infringement of influence trading and the scheme model comparing with the traditional bribery and other corruptive crimes, and find it necessary to introduce new laws to regulate such misconduct. Pertaining to the concept of“influence”, the author suggests a typology of“formal influence / informal influence”rather than“real influence / supposed influence”as mentioned in the Convention.
This dissertation also analyzes the similarity as well as differences between the sellers with and without an official position. Furthermore, the author also suggests a more limited liability to an influence buyer comparing to an influence seller. Finally, the author provides some comments and suggestions to the proposed§134- 1 criminal law amendment.