| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立雲林科技大學 === 科技法律研究所碩士班 === 100 === ABSTRACT
In October,2001, the three crime elements like ”deliberate law-breaking,” “intentionally for one’s own or others’ interests,” and “thereby to benefit” were succinctly written onto the Criminal law and the Corruption Act. The Ministry of Justice and some observers declare that this act would solve the controversial arguments upon the ambiguity of crime elements integral to Crimes for Profit.
Among these, the conviction of “thereby to benefit” is converted from perpetrator to result-gainer, according to some scholars and some realistic- minded observers. In short, the result-gainer means those people who have gained profits in the end, and the profits have to be trimmed illegally. What is the definition of “illegal?” The Ministry of Justice fails to explicate it in “Bewared Items for the Prosecution Office on Corruption Cases.”
Besides, there are diversified interpretations upon illegal profits. One of the examples is to borrow license and to gain profits from engineering construction by excluding other bidders who have taken part in the project and have earned some profits which are likewise examined in term of pros and cons. That is, are “illegal profits” equal to “profits gained from crimes?” Can “invisible interests” be examined in the criterion of “illegal profits?”
It is one of the ultimate goals for the Juridical to integrate the different but related legal interpretations. It is therefore a challenge to the Juridical in face of these diversified juridical judgments in the real world, and a must to explore the nature of these interpretations. “Legal advantage” is one of the basic ideas of the Criminal law, but can it be used as a theoretical base? How much can “Legal Advantage” function? What aspects of “Legal Advantage” function? What aspects of “Legal Advantages” that the crimes for profit need to protect? Is this an “expected interests?” How to count and evaluate them are the main focus of this paper.
|
|---|
