2008 年底力霸案刑事一審宣判，法院將涉案的兩名會計師處以刑事責任，同時，隨著投資人權利意識的興起，有越來越多涉及財報不實的財經犯罪中，會計師被列為刑事被告或民事求償的對象。會計界因而擔心法律將有重刑化或加重會計師責任的傾向。然而，本論文經過實證研究，發現在過去的民刑事判決中，課予會計師負擔簽證不實財報的民刑事責任偏低，力霸案之會計師之所以遭判刑，乃因其中有會計師自白，使得法院在認定主觀犯意時無困難所致，在其他的民刑事案件中，法院多傾向有利會計師的解釋，對會計師審計失敗的法律評價不足。因此本文預測未來司法審判，仍將持續過去所採較有利於會計師的見解，力霸案並不具備實務走向的代表性。本文亦經過實證統計發現，台灣過往對會計師失職為行政處分的案件數量及處分均偏低，對會計師簽證的法律以及行政監督機制並未發揮。雖會計界本身已開始強化自律他律的監督機制，但因獨立機關管理制度新設不久，且人力資源不足，是否能有效處理會計師審計失敗的專業責任問題，有待觀察。故總體而言，我國對會計師的監督機制就司法或行政層面，均有待改進。本文建議會計界應加緊改革步伐，提高審計品質，因力霸案雖就過往判決而言為特殊案例，但因我國刑事實務對共犯理論運用較為寬鬆，標準不一，若未來有類似力霸案的證言或共犯自白，不利於會計師的刑事責任判斷機率將大增，值得會計界警惕。

In the end of 2008, the Taipei district court held two auditors in Li-Bar Case guilty for the financial statement fraud and security fraud. Some auditors and researches worry that the court will enhance auditors’ legal liability when audit failure happens. However, by an empirical analysis, this paper finds that in the past, Taiwan’s courts no matter in criminal or civil trial, tended to adopt conservative attitudes and favor the defendant auditors in the cases involving financial statement fraud. Moreover, the empirical statistic indicates that the enforcement of auditor’s disciplinary punishment in Taiwan is ineffective and insufficient. Therefore, this paper concludes that the conviction of two auditors in Li-Bar case is an exception. However, it should be noted that in Taiwan, according to the precedent, the theory of accomplice is very loose. Auditors might be hold criminal liable if the court or the prosecutor can find any confession or testimony from other defendants in the case. The accounting profession in Taiwan should accelerate the reform to ensure the auditing quality. Otherwise, the expectation gap among accounting profession, legal profession, and the public will keep enlarging, and the holding like Li-Bar Case will happen again unsurprisingly.