法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
談我國行政罰法制度下的行政不法行為與刑罰之界限-行政法學與刑事法學的對話(Administrative Illegitimacy versus Criminal Illegitimacy)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 陳文貴
出版日期: 2008.11
刊登出處: 台灣/法學新論第 4 期/101-129 頁
頁  數: 28 點閱次數: 1837
下載點數: 112 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳文貴
關 鍵 詞: 行政罰行政犯秩序罰行政命令行政不法行為
中文摘要: 行政犯是刑事法學用以指稱行為人違反行政法上義務,而處以刑事罰之犯罪行為,對於行為人違反行政法上義務而受罰鍰、沒入或其他種類行政罰之處罰者,不宜以行政犯一詞稱之。
對於行為人違反行政法上義務規定,是否得以刑罰手段制裁?大法官向來僅以「衡酌事件之特性、侵害法益之輕重程度以及所欲達到之管制效果」等不確定法律概念加以帶過,而完全委由立法者決定,造成我國目前行政法規中刑罰之濫用。
本文試從刑事法學的法益保護觀點,提供一套客觀可行的界限審查標準,俾供立法者與司法者參考,期能導正我國目前行政刑法的濫用問題。
英文關鍵詞: Administrative PenaltyAdministrative CriminalPublic Security PunishmentAdministrative DecreeAdministrative Illegitimacy
英文摘要: The term "administrative illegitimacy" defined by the criminal jurisprudence is confined to criminal commitment which is punished for the contravention of the administrative law. Infringement of the administrative law which is only punished with fine, confiscation, or any other kind of administrative penalty is excluded.
The constitutionality of inflicting severe penalties on a person who merely disobey the administrative obligation is not only indeterminable but also equivocal. As a result of the fact that the chancery always command the power to make decisions to legislators, penalties for administrative illegitimacy is unchecked spreading. This article is trying to provide some practical criterions not only to contribute to distinguish administrative illegitimacy from criminal illegitimacy but also to help correct the misapplication of administrative penal code.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、行政不法行為
參、行政不法與刑事不法之區別
肆、行政罰與刑事罰之界限
伍、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
陳文貴,談我國行政罰法制度下的行政不法行為與刑罰之界限-行政法學與刑事法學的對話,法學新論,第4期,101-129頁,2008年11月。
返回功能列