法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 虛遷戶籍而投票之可罰性(The Punishability of the Act of Changing Domicile for the Purpose of Qualifying as an Elector)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2009.02
刊登出處: 台灣/法學新論第 7 期 /77-103 頁
頁  數: 25 點閱次數: 1279
下載點數: 100 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 薛智仁
關 鍵 詞: 虛偽遷徙戶籍無權投票妨害投票結果正確罪
中文摘要: 基於選舉目的而虛遷戶籍者之投票構成妨害投票結果正確罪,是最高法院向來的見解,立法者亦透過增訂刑法第一四六條第二項接受此看法。本文主張,此一肯定可罰性的結論值得贊同;但論證應予補充及修正,並且同時適用於所有虛遷戶籍者之投票及參選行為。至於多數文獻對最高法院見解的批評,則是忽略居住事實始具創設選舉人資格之效力,也誤用憲法上遷徙自由與選舉自由的主張。儘管如此,增訂第一四六條第二項則是徒然製造問題的修法,未來立法上宜再度刪除,同步修正第一項之文字。
英文關鍵詞: Changing Domicile for the Purpose of Qualifying as an ElectorNot Qualifying as an ElectorOffence of Interference with Voting
英文摘要: The act of changing domicile for the purpose of qualifying as an elector constitutes the offence of interference with voting. Sufficient Supreme Court precedents have been established and accepted by the congress to add paragraph 2 to Article 146 of the Criminal Code. This article agrees with the conclusion that such act is punishable but argues that the reasoning there behind should be modified and supplemented, and the offence should be applicable to acts of changing domicile for the purpose of qualifying as an elector or as a candidate. The critics of many literatures about the opinion of the Supreme Court ignore that actual residency is a requirement to be a qualified candidate, and also misuse the freedom of migration and the freedom of election provided for under the constitution. Nonetheless, adding paragraph 2 to Article 146 only creates confusion. Consequently, in the future, said paragraph should be deleted and the wording in paragraph 1 should be amended.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、最高法院立場
參、投票結果正確性
肆、詐術或其他非法方法
伍、立法檢討
陸、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列