技師懲戒案例研究：以近14年公告之案例為中心

Abstract

技師懲戒係為維護公共安全與公共利益所設，惟懲戒程序一旦啟動，對於被付懲戒技師即有相當程度之影響，因此，本論文研究目的即在於探討技師懲戒案例中常見之行為態樣。\n\n於分析技師懲戒案例後，可知涉及技師法第16條以及第19條懲戒事由之案件數量較多。涉及簽證業務之技師懲戒案例，可分為文件是否由技師本人簽署、是否逾越執業範圍、是否係於其本人或本人監督之工作為簽證、是否違反其應盡之義務，以及是否違反與業務有關之法令之類型。此外，於涉及辦理鑑定之案例中，技師受懲戒處分之情形較少。\n\n關於未盡設計義務之懲戒案例，行為態樣涉及設計疏失、調查工作，以及圖說疏失。至於未盡監造義務而受懲戒之懲戒案例，行為態樣涉及材料、審查、變更設計、施工環境、監造文件，以及督導廠商六類。由違反技師法第7條以及工程技術顧問公司管理條例第13條之規定而受懲戒之案例可知，技師懲戒委員會以勞保或健保之投保或退保日期，推斷技師是否僅在同一執業機構執行業務，或是否為專任之繼續性從業人員。

Professional engineer discipline system is enacted to safeguard public safety and public interests. However, once the disciplinary procedure is initiated, the penalized professional engineer will be plagued by the procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to research the common patterns of behavior in professional engineer discipline cases.\n\nAfter analyzing professional engineer discipline cases, it can be seen that the number of cases involving Articles 16 and 19 of the Professional Engineers Act is relatively large. The professional engineer discipline cases concerning certification can be classified into the following categories: whether documents are signed personally by the professional engineers, whether the professional engineer goes beyond the business scope specified on the professional engineer license, whether the professional engineer provides certification only for the works that are completed by himself/herself or under his/her supervision, whether the professional engineer breaches or neglects obliged liabilities on consigned duties, and whether the professional engineer breaches laws or regulations related to engineering practice. Besides, disciplinary actions are rarely imposed on professional engineers in the cases concerning conducting an appraisal.\n\nAs for the discipline cases related to the breach of design liabilities, the patterns of behavior involve neglect of design, investigation, and drawings. As to the discipline cases in regard to the breach of construction supervision liabilities, the patterns of behavior involve materials, evaluation, alteration of design, the situation of the construction site, documents pertaining to construction supervision, and supervision on the contractor. From the cases related to the violation of Article 7 of Professional Engineers Act or Article 13 of Act governing the administration of professional engineering consulting firms, the professional engineer discipline committee infers whether a professional engineer practices only in one single firm or serves the duties on an exclusive (full-time) and continual basis through the date of subscription to or withdrawal from national health insurance or labor insurance.