環境影響評估文書之真實義務 - 評永揚環評案

Abstract

環評文書真實義務與刑法偽造文書罪所保護的法益相當。以不實環評文書通過環評審查取得開發許可，其目的在獲取經濟利益，可視為財經犯罪的詐欺犯。文書不實雖不產生環境實害，但其破壞環境管理體制的文書制度，是刑法應該重視且認真看待的問題。為何通過有環評審查制度的文書，卻處罰環評業者及開發單位負責人業務登載不實罪為本文討論重點。實務上環評文書登載不實的法律見解不多，因此，審理永揚廢棄物處理場環評案之台南地方法院及臺灣高等法院台南分院之判決，即成為重要的研究資料。茲將全文分為六章，第一章為前言，主要說明本文之研究動機與目的；第二章說明我國環境影響評估之行政管制與登載不實相關刑法規定，並針對環境影響評估法第20條行政刑罰立法正當性進行討論；第三章就永揚案一 、二審法院判決，探討國內實務在環評文書登載不實及共同正犯之審理情形與爭議以做為質性訪談的基礎並作出評析；第四章則為質性研究，對永揚案一位評估者及一位檢察官進行深度訪談，以了解實務運作情形並提出實證資料；第五章為建議，針對質性研究與本文的探討所得結果提出建議，以供立法、司法及行政實務參考；第六章為結論。

What legal interest the crime of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report misrepresentation protects is just the same as the offenses of forging instruments. The main purpose of using the false report to get the development activity permission is to obtain the economic interest, which can also be seen as fraudulence. Though EIA report misrepresentation does not do any substantial harm to the environment, it actually destroys the instrument system of the environment management frame; which is a serious problem that should be thought highly of. What we focused on here is why the EIA review committee approved the EIA report but still punishes the representatives of the developer and the EIA consultants for crime of forgery. There are only few legal opinions about EIA report misrepresentation. Therefore, the judgments made by Tainan District Court and the Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch upon Yong-Yang case have become important research data. Hereby the full thesis will be divided into six chapters. The thesis first begins with a brief introduction, mainly explaining the motivation and the purpose of this study. Chapter 2 illustrates the administrative regulation of EIA and relevant criminal law about EIA report misrepresentation. The legislative legitimacy of administrative criminal punishment of EIA Act 20 is also discussed. Chapter 3 focuses on the two verdicts announced by district court and high court on Yong-Yang case, discussing how the court tries when judging EIA report misrepresentation and joint offenders in practice. Then, it will further use the previous observation as the basis of qualitative interviews and make some comments; Chapter 4 concentrates on the in-depth interviews with an EIA consultant and a prosecutor of Yong-Yang case in order to truly understand how it works in practice and further provide the empirical data; Chapter 5 aims at offering some proposals out from the whole study result for the legislative, the judicial and the administrative department. The final chapter is the conclusion.