論緩刑效力不及於從刑-以憲法第23條比例原則分析貪污治罪條例第17條之規定

Abstract

貪污治罪條例開宗明義第1條即規定，其目的係為了「嚴懲貪污、澄清吏治」，然而，貪污治罪條例自民國52年施行至今，已達60年之久，我國上自政府官員，下至軍警人員，仍爆出貪污事件不斷，因此，嚴刑峻罰之貪污治罪條例，真能達到其立法目的嗎？令人質疑。

再者，自貪污治罪條例第17條規定可見，不論情節輕重、緩刑與否，只要觸犯貪污治罪條例並宣告有期徒刑者，一律宣告褫奪公權，雖其目的係為了呼應前述第1條之立法目的；然而，貪污治罪條例中不乏動輒10年起跳的刑度，如此苛刑之下，至今仍有許多公務員、民代願不惜一切代價鋌而走險，為此，不禁令人好奇，貪污治罪條例第17條之一律宣告褫奪公權，是否與刑法上關於主刑、從刑及緩刑之立法目的相同？是否侵害人民憲法上服公職權？是否違反憲法上之比例原則？為此，本文藉由個案研究，進而分析歷年法院實務判決之見解，試圖找出貪污治罪條例與刑法上適用疑慮之處，更進一步討論，倘就個案聲請大法官解釋可能得出之結論，最後提出本文研究之建議。

Article 1 of the Anti-Corruption Act clearly states its objective: "The Act is enacted to sternly punish corruption and cleanse the officialdom." However, despite the Act being in effect for six decades, cases of corruption persist among government officials, military personnel, and the police. This raises the question: "Can the tough penalties outlined in the Anti-Corruption Act truly achieve their intended purpose?" Unfortunately, this question remains unanswered.

Furthermore, Article 17 of the Anti-Corruption Act stipulates “Any person who is sentenced to a prison term for committing any of the offenses listed in the Act shall also be deprived of his civil rights for a certain period.” Its purpose is to echo Article 1 above, and many of the penalties in the Act start at 10 years. Surprisingly, even with such severe penalties, quite a few public servants are still willing to run the risk of breaking the law. As a result, we wonder if Article 17 is aligned with the Criminal Law's legislative goals for primary and accessory punishment, as well as probation. Could this penalty potentially infringe on individuals' constitutional right to public office or violate the principle of proportionality? Using case studies and analyzing court cases over the years, this article explores some of the issues about anti-corruption legislation and criminal law application. The article concludes with suggestions for further research.