法學期刊
論著名稱: 2018 年刑事實體法之回顧(Developments in the Law in 2018: Criminal Law)
編著譯者: 王皇玉
出版日期: 2019.11
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 48 卷 特刊/1675-1702 頁
頁  數: 28 點閱次數: 737
下載點數: 112 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 王皇玉
關 鍵 詞: 環境犯罪公共危險組織犯罪夾結作用共同正犯脫離
中文摘要: 本文以 2018 年修正之刑法條文,以及最高法院於 2018 年之相關刑法裁判作為回顧之重心。2018 年刑法僅針對第 190 條之 1 有關環境刑法之規定加以修正。從立法過程來看,本條規定之修正背景,乃立法委員認為舊刑法要求環境污染行為必須出現「致生公共危險」之結果,在舉證上非常困難,使得過去某些環境破壞行為者,因為無法證明發生污染之結果與因果關係,僥倖逃過刑法制裁,造成民怨。此次修法之方向,刪除「致生公共危險」一語,改採「抽象危險犯」之立法,就是為了要放寬環境犯罪之成罪標準,此外,並修法加重對於環境破壞行為之刑罰規定,以嚴懲環境破壞行為。
就 2018 年之最高法院判決,本文則聚焦於與詐騙集團有關犯罪之刑法適用疑義。尤其聚焦於以下兩個問題,其一,乃加重詐欺罪與參與犯罪組織罪之競合問題;其二則為詐騙集團成員得否允許於著手實行詐騙行為後主張「著手後脫離」之爭議。這些爭議在 2018 年出現的最高法院相關判決中,有相關之探討,故本文以下亦針對這些問題加以說明與分析。
英文關鍵詞: environmental crimespublic dangersorganized crimesclipping effectdeparture from joint crimes
英文摘要: This paper focuses on the Criminal Code amended in 2018 and the decisions related to criminal law made by the Supreme Court in 2018 for discussion and review. In 2018, only the provision in Article 190-1 related to criminal law on the environmental destruction was amended. From the perspective of legislative process, the background of the amendment of this provision is that, the legislators argue that the old Criminal Code requires environmental pollution must cause "public danger". However, the cause between public danger and environmental destruction is very difficult to prove. As a result, some environmental destroyers narrowly escaped from the criminal sanctions in the past because it was impossible to prove the pollution results and the causation, which raised public disapproval and social grievances. The goal of this provision amendment is to eliminate the elements of "public danger" and "causation". Therefore, the act environmental destruction is easier to be persecuted. The amended provision also increased criminal punishment to prevent the act of environmental destruction.
In terms of the decisions made by the Supreme Court in 2018, this paper focuses on the applications of the criminal law related to crimes committed by fraudulent groups. In recent years, telephone or internet scams have become a serious issue. A behavioral pattern of "aggravated false pretense" in Article 339-4 was added to the Criminal Code in June 2014 in order to increase the punishment of fraud. Regardless, in recent years, various disputes about the application and punishment related to aggravated false pretense still appear in practical decisions. Whether the behavior of these fraudulent groups can be also applied to the Organized Crime Prevention Act is highly concerned。Therefore, in this paper, two decisions made by the Supreme Court in 2018 are selected to be discussed.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、刑法第 190 條之 1 環境刑法之修正
一、立法緣由
二、修法重點及批評
三、刑法第 190 條之 1 之解釋與疑義
四、小結
參、2018 年實務判決回顧
一、參與犯罪組織與加重詐欺罪之關係:107 年度台上字第 1066 號刑事判決
二、詐騙集團成員得否主張「著手後脫離」:106 年台上字第 3352 號刑事判決
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列