大學教師適用刑法公務員規定之研究

Abstract

少子女化的衝擊下，大學朝多角化經營，而大學教師更是在本身教職外，可能會有受委託從事研究；在校內擔任教評會委員；在校外亦有採購評選委員等的機會。各界對大學教師可能會有比較高之道德期待，然當大學教師從事前述職務時犯錯，其是否屬於刑法公務員不可一概而論，究竟國立大學教師在什麼樣的情形下，應適用刑法第10條第2項之規定，以刑法公務員予以評價。\n本文由職務犯罪的不法內涵，亦即公務員犯罪之規範目的出發，透過比較法及文獻分析法，綜整出新修正刑法公務員概念之合理範圍，基於行為之法益侵害可能性決定公務員概念意義，最後就大學教師執行委託研究及在校內外從事職務之具體個案，如何適用刑法公務員規定，以個案研究法作研析及推演，透過研析大學教師不同行為之具體個案，綜整出適用刑法公務員規定之情形基本圖像及輪廓。\n確立以個別條文規範目的為基礎，界定公務員概念後，無論結果究竟是擴張或限縮了公務員作為行為主體的概念範圍，其實並不應該是爭議所在，因為處罰範圍之決定有賴各分則要件之設計與詮釋，最後，本文認為未來還是得面對貪污治罪條例罪刑不相當的問題，並研議修法，才是根本解決之道。

Under the impact of the trend of fewer children, Universities work on diversification. Teachers in universities may be entrusted to engage in research. They may also serve as members of the teaching councils, and also have the opportunity to be a procurement personnel and so on. In the case of a teacher of national universities, the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Criminal Law shall apply.\nThe study is aimed at the purpose of public officials crime. Through the comparative law and literature analysis, the study try to find the new amendments to the criminal law of the concept of a reasonable range of public officials. Finally, through analyzing the concrete cases of university teachers `different behaviors, the basic images and contours of public official under criminal law are summarized.\nWhether the result is an expansion or a narrowing of the public official concept, there should be no dispute. The decision on the scope of the penalty depends on the design and interpretation of the sub-elements. To face of crime and punishment are not quite under Anti-Corruption Act and to discuss amendments to law is the fundamental solution.