本文以貪污治罪條例第六條第一項第五款之非主管監督事務圖利罪之解釋與適用為核心，從實務判決出發，探究本罪之罪質與犯罪實行態樣。本文主張必須從「職務執行公正性」的角度，將本罪定性為濫權類型犯罪。進而，本罪可區分為「利用職權機會圖利型」以及「利用身分圖利型」兩種不同的犯罪實行態樣，以進行合理的限定解釋。就「利用職權機會」圖利而言，「職權機會」不等於「職務上之機會」，需涉及公權力等權限行使之事務處理。就「利用身分」圖利而言，行為人藉由職務身分上之實質影響力，而使主管監督事務之承辦公務員產生心理拘束效果進而做出一個涉及具體權限行使之錯誤決定。此際，本類型之「明知違背法令」係指斡旋之行為人明知承辦者（被斡旋者）之行為將違背法令。最後，從立法論而言，可考慮刪除特殊圖利罪，改以處罰根據較明確合理的斡旋賄賂罪代替之，但不應採取「地位利用說」而應採取「職務公正性妨害說」來構思其構成要件。

This study aims at evaluating and explaining the peculiar type of enrichment by public officials in the Anti-Corruption Statute (Article 6, Section 1, Paragraph 5). Concretely speaking, this study focuses on ana-lyzing not only its legal interest but also the related judicial precedents in order to explain the phrases of “abuse of authority”, “violation of law, statutes and orders”, “using one’s influence”, and “using opportunities provided by one’s official authority”. First, this offense should not be comprehended as a crime of corruption or bribery, but as an abuse of authority. Second, this offense should be distinguished by the relationship between public officials and those who gain illegal benefit. “Enrichment by using opportunities provided by one’s official authori-ty” means “a two-sided relationship”, and “enrichment by using one’s influence” means “a three-sided relationship”, which means two differ-ent public officials are included. A proper and limited explanation can be found according to these two different models. Finally, this peculiar type of Enrichment by Public Officials should be replaced by “Ac-ceptance for Exertion of Influence”.