請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9102
標題: | 經濟刑法之背信罪與特別背信罪的再建構 The Reconstruction of The Common and Special Breach of Trustfulness in Economically Criminal Law |
作者: | Chih-Chiang Wu 吳志強 |
指導教授: | 李茂生(Mau-Sheng Lee) |
關鍵字: | 法益論,規範論,背信罪,特別背信罪,經營判斷法則,違背任務,圖利目的,加害目的,後進資本主義,整體財產法益,經濟犯罪,金融犯罪, the theory of legal interest,the theory of norm,the common breach of trustfulness in common criminal law,the special breach of trustfulness in special criminal law,business judgment rule,breach of trustfulness,profitable intent,harmful intent,late capitalism,the legal interest of full property,economic crime,financial crime, |
出版年 : | 2011 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 背信罪向來被認為是用來維護個人整體財產法益之犯罪,而為了保障經濟、金融秩序的特別背信罪,則多半被認為係用來保護社會法益的類型化犯罪。然而,若從刑法學中的法益論和規範論的角度,配合歷史脈絡、政策與資本主義發展的背景加以觀察,所謂整體財產法益的「整體」則耐人尋味。本文從法益論和規範論的角度以及梳理、分析實務和學說見解,重新詮釋背信罪在刑法體系中所扮演的角色其實係為了避免經濟秩序受到侵害所創設的前置預防規範,適用背信罪之情形,在歷史脈絡與政策考量的情況下,必須係三面關係的經濟交易模式才能夠作為啟動背信罪之契機,背信罪罪質之部份則必須採取限定觀點的背信說。
並且由於背信罪所彰顯的機能,在現今社會當中可以由特別背信罪加以取代,其他事案也可以回歸適用侵占、詐欺等犯罪類型,在背信罪形骸化的情況下,為了避免動輒成為經濟交易活動之事後爭訟工具,立法論上建議將其刪除之,藉以舒緩刑法規範肥大化的現狀。 特別背信罪之部份,本文重申其所賦予之規範性,並以銀行法第125條之2的特別背信罪為例,重新檢視銀行法特別背信罪之適用方式,以及對於商事法中的經營判斷法則可否適用於刑法特別背信罪當中,本文認為並不能強要將作為民商事案件之舉證責任的直接作為特別背信罪中有無違背任務之判斷,蓋將會使得行政不法完全等同刑事不法,特別背信罪之案件審理時亦會欠缺實質判斷。但考量原本應依照行政規則、要點從事授信業務之銀行負責人或職員,恐因擔心所貸付之款項無法收回而遭受刑責,所有涉及冒險融資的決定盡皆不為,以至於減損企業商業活動所需融通之資金以及企業再造的可能性,經營判斷法則之要素或許可以透過概念上的異化,套用到主觀意圖中,由法院實質判斷有無對於本人造成實質上之不利益。 It is considered that the purpose of punishing the common breach of trustfulness is different from the special breach of trustfulness. The former is in order to protect the personal property and the latter is in order to maintain the order of economic and finance. Nevertheless, observing the clause with the theory of legal interest or norm, history, policy and capitalism could find that the “full” of the legal interest of full property has another meaning. This article renews the meaning of the common breach of trustfulness in criminal law and explanation that the common breach of trustfulness in criminal law actually acts as the front and defensive norm of the order of economic and finance. The precondition of applying to the clause is that the principal requires the trustee to handle the propertied affairs with others. The intrinsic quality of the clause must apply the limited range of breaching trustfulness. Because the function of special breach of trustfulness in special criminal law could replace the common breach of trustfulness in common criminal law and other crimes could be returned to embezzlement and fraud or other types of crime, this article suggests that the legislators should abolish the common breach of trustfulness in common criminal law to prevent the clause only becomes the tool of litigation and ease the situation of hypertrophy in criminal law. In the special breach of trustfulness in special criminal law, this article give an example about section 125-2 of Bank Act to investigate that the application of subject, illegal behavior and the function of business judgment rule in criminal law. This article considers that although the judge could not properly apply the BJR in criminal case, the judge probably could extract elements of BJR and place these into the intent of the actor to accomplish the alienation of BJR. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9102 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf | 3.37 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。