廉能治理為我國公共政策之要項，過去無論在學界或實務界，大多著重於肅貪防弊面，強調貪瀆會衝擊人民對政府的信賴、是國家競爭力衰退的歸因，應持續加強監督管控機制，以防杜公務員貪污瀆職、收受賄賂，而鮮少有研究意識到，檢察官濫權起訴，同樣可能是行政效能低落之關鍵，近年來，公務員涉及刑事案件，採購人員已高居第1位，其中，10萬元以下小額採購作業規定相形空泛、自主性大，故本研究特別側重此一採購級距，研究目的在於分析上開公務員賈禍羅罪之態樣，研究方法採內容分析法，以司法院法學資料檢索系統為資料來源，全國地方法院一審刑事判決確定裁判書為研究對象，透過立意抽樣法蒐集民國89年至102年間事涉小額採購之35件裁判書為研究樣本，並個案追蹤至終審，研究發現有高達有71%被起訴的公務員，主觀上未有牟取不法財物犯意，客觀上本身亦未獲得任何不法利益，卻遭到檢察官以涉犯貪瀆罪嫌起訴，當事人自此即須獨立面對遙遙無期之漫長訴訟，可能導致公務員多做多錯的心態，35案中，31%係肇因於檢察官對採購行為行政實務判斷誤差所形成錯誤認知之司法見解，40%或屬一時失察、抑或援引慣例、甚或便宜行事等皆有之，29%是基於意圖為自己不法所有之犯意，理當審慎匡正才是，研究貢獻係以法院審判實務案例及統計數字凸顯主觀上無不法犯意而涉訟之公務員不在少數，是倡廉反貪同時，另一項值得關切的議題。 Integrity govern in public policy is the essential main items in our country. Anti-corruption was always focused by the field of academia research and actual performance in the past time. Meanwhile, the impact upon the people’s confidence of government is mostly emphasized. That’s also the major cause of declining in country competitiveness and should be continuously strengthened in the area of supervising and controlling in order to prevent public official from corruption. Moreover, they are rarely conscious of the fact that the abuse of accusation and prosecution is probably the key point which results in the decreasing of administrative efficiency at the same time. Those who are engaged in procurement affairs in accordance with law are alleged involved in criminal accusations and gradually reach the status of top 1 in recent years. Especially, the details concerning the Small Procurement (a procurement of a value not reaching 100 thousands NT dollars) of the Government Procurement Act are apparently not specific and exact. That’s the reason why the Small Procurement should be concentrated on surveying on purpose. By way of Purposive Sampling in collecting and searching the Judicial Yuan laws and verdicts database, it indicates those models and styles of accusation-getting of public official and takes an analysis. The harvest of 35 verdicts which involved in procurement affairs during the period from 2000 to 2013 are selected as targets of survey and traced to the final trial in court. The consequences approve that 71% public official among the up-mentioned cases who neither subjectively attempt to gain any illegal property nor objectively obtain other unlawful benefits are entirely accused and prosecuted of alleged committing in corruption by prosecutors. From the point of that time on, those public official reluctantly have to independently face the unexpecting, uncertain and long-period journey of prosecution. It will make all public official afraid of task-engaging. Furthermore, 31% suitcases are perhaps resulted in prosecuter’s unfamiliar to Administrative Practices and lead them to make the misunderstanding and false judgement. Besides, 41% cases are possibly due to the personal unawareness, getting accustomed to the so-called ”it is said…” and the greediness of illegal convenience in conducting negligently. Eventually, there are just merely 29% cases based on unlawful intent of the accused party. After all, carefully having this kind of situation reminded and improved as possible as we can is really what you and me should do at present time.
