English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90029/119959 (75%)
Visitors : 24039880      Online Users : 173
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/113513
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/113513


    Title: 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
    Authors: 許恒達
    Hsu, Heng-Da
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 賄賂;對價關係;職務之公正信賴;貪污;公務員
    Bribery;“Quid pro quo” Relation;Trust of Integrity;Corruption;Government Officer
    Date: 2014-04
    Issue Date: 2017-10-11 15:48:58 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 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 illegal interests. 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.
    Relation: 軍法專刊, Vol.60, No.2, pp.62-83
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML487View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback