2000年初期，立法者在各項金融改革法案當中，仿造刑法普通背信罪要件增訂了以金融機構負責人或職員為主體的特別背信罪規定。不過，在犯罪構成要件上，除行為主體外，實行行為、結果、乃至於法定刑的劃定皆有不同。本文具體分析這些金融機構特別背信罪的保護法益、行為主體、實行行為、主觀意圖、財產損害與犯罪所得之關連性、以及對向犯理論適用等問題後認為，外觀上雖與背信罪類似，然而保護法益及相對應的構成要件解釋，皆應有別於普通背信罪。亦即，本罪乃以金融機構之財產上損害作為認定不特定多數存款戶以及投資者的財產損害，以及整體金融秩序紊亂之類型上危險性，屬於「侵害測定困難的抽象危險犯」。當行為本身根本欠缺立法者事前所想定的類型上危險性時，應排除適用本罪。其次，就行為主體而言，應將負責人或職員限定在具關於財產上事務處理之決策權限之人。而就實行行為而言，違背職務與普通背信罪「違背任務」應加以區別；本罪應考慮金融業務的特殊性，從「執行業務之公正性」的侵害典型──權限濫用的角度，將行為限定在行為人濫用其所具有之「對本人造成法律上利益或不利益之財產裁量權限」。至於「商業判斷法則」應於客觀要件中運用之。此外，關於犯罪所得之算定，不應扣除成本稅捐或其他費用，盡可能反映出資金流向的規模，以彰顯對金融秩序的高度類型上危險性。最後，關於背信行為之相對人是否成立（特別）背信罪之共同正犯，本文認為，（特別）背信罪並非必要共犯，但依事例仍有可能產生利益輸送之對向關係。可依「增幅不法理論」排除總則共犯與共同正犯規定之適用。特別是以保護金融秩序為核心的特別背信罪中，更有適用本理論之空間。

In 2000s, legislators passed couples of amendments about breach of trust by managers and employees of many kinds of financial institutions, such like article 125-2 of the Banking Act, which is enacted to punish Bank's managers or employees who violates his/her duty with the intent to gain illegal benefit for himself/herself or a third party and damages the Bank's assets or other interests. This article introduces and discusses these various but similar provisions of breach of trust. The main aim of these similar provisions is to protect the interests of investors and depositors and also to prevent potential financial crisis. However, these provisions, with more severe punishments than the regular breach of trust in Penal Code, cannot be fully justified by the explanations made by the courts nowadays. This study begins the discussion by considering what the ＂legal interest＂ of these provisions should be, and then try to explain the phases of ＂managers and employees in financial institutions＂, ＂violating his/her duty＂, ＂damages＂ and ＂criminal income＂. After that, the author discusses the application of business judgment rules to these provisions, and the proper use of ＂encounter offense＂.