| 摘要: | 觀銀行法第125條之2特別背信罪增訂之立法理由得見，立法者顯然認為倘若銀行負責人或其職員有違背其職務，進而致生銀行受有損害時，如僅依刑法普通背信罪論處，刑度仍有過輕之不足，遂有予重罰而另制定銀行法特別背信罪之必要。惟，於刑法背信罪之既存下，銀行法特別背信罪究竟有無另為增訂，以及更行加重其刑必要之質疑及釐清，即成為本文發想書寫之動機緣由。
本文於探討銀行法特別背信罪之前，將先就刑法背信罪保護之法益、背信罪之本質、構成要件，進行學說及實務見解之彙整及分析，並提出本文之看法。基於此，進而探究銀行法特別背信罪，立法者所欲保護之法益、構成要件與刑法背信罪有何異同？銀行法特別背信罪於學說及實務上解釋與適用爭議（如：行為主體、違背任務之認定、主觀意圖之認定、致生損害之認定），銀行法特別背信罪之構成要件是否應予限縮？就立法論而言，有無續存之必要？或修正條文之可能？
藉由前述章節就刑法背信罪、銀行法特別背信罪有關學說、實務見解之彙整及分析，本文進而再舉國內經典、重大金融犯罪案件（紅火案）作為本文之實務案例解析，本文將就事實、歷審判決、爭點及判決理由進行彙整，於對參目前學說及實務見解後，提出本文之啟發及省思，期能藉由實務個案，釐清法院就銀行法特別背信罪各構成要件之判斷標準、解釋及適用。
綜上，本文認為應就銀行法第125條之2第1項規定之行為主體、職權範圍進行限縮解釋並修正條文內容，以避免現行學說與實務個案上解釋及適用之爭議。
The legislative reasons for the addition of the special offense of breach of trust under Article 125-2 of the Banking Act can be observed that legislators believe that if bank executives or employees breach their duties and cause damage to the bank, criminal punishment under general provisions of the Penal Code alone may be insufficient and there is a need for severe penalties and the establishment of a specific offense of breach of trust in banking laws. However, the existence of the crime of breach of trust in criminal law raises questions about whether there is a specific crime of breach of trust in banking law and the necessity of enhancing penalties. This serves as the motivation and reason for writing this article.
This article discusses the protection of legal interests, nature, elements of the crime of breach of trust under criminal law, consolidates and analyzes academic and practical views, and presents the author's perspective before exploring the specific offense of breach of trust under banking law. Based on this, further explore the crime of breach of trust in banking legislation, the protected interests, elements, and differences between the offense of breach of trust in criminal law. Disputes regarding the interpretation and application of the offense of special breach of trust in banking law (such as the determination of the subject of the act, breach of duty, determination of subjective intent, determination of causing damage), and whether the elements of the offense should be restricted. From a legislative perspective, is there a continued need for its existence? Or is there a possibility of amending the provisions?
By summarizing and analyzing the relevant legal theories and practical insights on the crimes of breach of trust under the Criminal Code and the specific crime of breach of trust under the Banking Act, this article further provides a practical case analysis by using a classic and significant domestic financial crime case (the Red Fire case). This article will compile facts, past judicial decisions, disputes, and reasoning behind the judgments, and based on the existing academic theories and practical perspectives, provide insights and reflections in this article, with the aim of clarifying the criteria, interpretation, and application of the elements of the offense of aggravated breach of trust under the Banking Act through practical cases.
In conclusion, this article suggests that the interpretation and content of Article 125-2-1 of the Banking Act should be limited and amended in order to avoid disputes in interpretation and application in current academic and practical cases. |
