本文的寫作目的在於透過自由法治國家之概念釐清妨害公務罪中「公務」概念的內涵。我國實務上對於公務的理解，多只在形式上依賴實證法而欠缺實質說理。學說上提出的「強制可能性」說與「國家任務」說，亦或多或少有值得商榷之處。本文認為，在一個以自由為基礎的法治國家中，公務的一般性特徵為：「國家擔保人民權利之任務」。基此，首先，倘若將人民當作危險源，亦即從預防人民犯罪的角度定位國家行為者，皆非公務。其次，在自由法治國家中，每個人都具有相同的權利領域，這些權利領域彼此間並不能相互衡量，也就是，效益最大化不能成為國家干預行為的理由。最後，國家只能介入處理人民相互間外在的共存事項，不能強制人民為善。

The goal of this article is to clarify what ＂public functions＂ are in the Offenses of Interference with Public Functions via the concept of liberal rule of-law state.Some views on ＂public functions＂ have long depended on the interpretation of positive law, lacking substantive reasoning. Some views limit the ability of human being only to the standard of instrumental sence.This article proposed, through the concept of liberal rule-of-law state, the definition of public functions should be, ＂the state's tasks to provide liberal legal subjects protections of their rights.＂ On this basis, any governmental function denoting the civilians as dangerousness to society that require prevention is not a public function. Also, maximizing utility for society is not a justifiable governmental function because every legal subject in a liberal rule-of-law state should enjoy intact domain of personal legal goods.