| 關 鍵 詞： |
沒收；犯罪物沒收；關聯客體；犯罪工具；犯罪產物；犯罪客體 |
| 中文摘要： |
本文處理以下幾個常見之犯罪物沒收問題，並評釋相關實務見解：1.違禁物與其他犯罪物類型競合時，應如何沒收？2.犯罪工具沒收是否以「專供」犯罪者為限？3.犯罪工具沒收，例如用以犯強制性交之交通工具，得否援引「關聯客體」概念作為沒收與否之基準？4.犯罪客體，如犯走私罪之走私物，其沒收在我國刑法上有無法律依據？5.附屬刑法之犯罪物沒收特例，與刑法犯罪物沒收之關係為何？
就結論言：1.違禁物與其他犯罪物沒收競合時，固得逕依違禁物沒收之，但因特定原因（如相對性違禁物）無法依違禁物規定沒收者，應繼續檢驗競合之其他犯罪物沒收規定，例如犯罪產物、工具之第三人沒收；我國實務經常忽略後者檢驗而未予沒收。2.犯罪工具沒收，不以「專供」犯罪為限；犯罪工具是指用以促進犯罪的幫助物，對於構成要件實現有某種關聯性或貢獻度即可，無論從文義解釋、立法意旨或規範目的，皆無法得出「專供」犯罪為限之結論；關此，我國實務見解有誤且裁判亦自相矛盾。3.犯罪工具沒收，不能誤引「關聯客體」而予排除；源自德國刑法的關聯客體，概念上自始僅指涉犯罪構成要件要素中的必要「客體」，本不包含犯罪「工具」或「產物」在內，是以，縱使構成要件（不論基本或加重）有描述、預設某種犯罪工具或設備（如窺視竊聽罪所預設的「利用工具或設備」），作為犯罪之前提事實要素，也和關聯「客體」概念完全無關。4.我國法並未專門將「犯罪客體」列為獨立一項的犯罪物沒收類型；立法文字所稱「供犯罪所用（或犯罪預備）之物」，除指犯罪工具外，可否解釋為包含某些犯罪客體？有肯定說、否定說之爭。本文指出另一可能解釋選項：修正肯定說（排除部分犯罪客體，如被害客體）。5.附屬刑法僅在其沒收特例範圍優先適用，其餘仍皆回歸刑法總則之犯罪物沒收及沒收共同規定。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Confiscation；Contraband；Instruments of the Crimes；Products of the Crimes；Objects of the Crimes |
| 英文摘要： |
This article discusses several questions concerning confiscation of crime-related objects and thus comments some related judgments:
1. The applicable relation between confiscation between contraband goods and other types of crime-related objects.
2. Whether it is limited to objects specifically for crime when it comes to confiscation of crime instruments.
3. Question about objects of the crime.
4. The legal basis of confiscation of crime-related objects in Taiwan.
5. The relation between confiscation of crime-related objects in Criminal Code and in other criminal regulations.
The article sums up the above questions to the following conclusions: confiscation can be conducted directly according to contraband goods, but confiscation of other types of crime-related objects should be reviewed if confiscation of contraband goods doesn’t apply. Confiscation of crime instruments don’t limit to objects specifically for crime and several judgments didn’t notice the false argument. Confiscation of crime instruments cannot be wrongly understood as objects of the crime and thus excluded from confiscation. This article suggested a “modified positive opinion” about confiscation of crime-related objects. Finally other criminal regulations have the priority to apply only to a certain extent, whereas Criminal Code should be applied in every normal circumstances.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言與出發案例
貳、基礎說明
參、實務見解選錄
肆、綜合評釋
伍、結語
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|