法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 行政罰法利得剝奪及沒入規定與刑法沒收規定競合問題之研究(Concurrence between the Regulations of Deprivation of Illegal Benefits and Forfeiture in the Administrative Penalty Act and the Confiscation Regulations in the Criminal Code)
編著譯者: 陳信安
出版日期: 2020.09
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 49 卷 第 3 期 /819-880 頁
頁  數: 62 點閱次數: 821
下載點數: 248 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 行政罰法利得沒收狹義沒收利得剝奪沒入
中文摘要: 我國行政罰法係自 2006 年 2 月初開始施行,相較於當時刑法沒收相關規定之簡陋,行政罰法於立法時即以當時德國秩序違反罰法為仿效對象,而在第 18 條以下就不法利得之剝奪及沒入部分有較為完整之規範。或因當時刑法關於沒收之規定較為簡陋,尤其是欠缺不法利得沒收之規範,故而在相關個案中較少出現應如何適用行政罰法與刑法相關規定之爭議問題。然而,自從新刑法於 2015 年大幅增修沒收規定後,相關個案中因新刑法沒收規定與行政罰法利得剝奪及沒入規定之競合所生規範解釋與適用爭議問題,已屬常見而不可避免。本文由最高行政法院 107 年度判字第 732 號行政判決,及相關判決之原因事實所生之行政罰法沒入規定與刑法利得沒收規定之競合問題出發,就現行行政罰法利得剝奪及沒入規定與刑法沒收規定在個案中可能出現之各種競合情形,以及所衍生相關法規之解釋與適用問題予以類型化,並藉由分析行政罰法及新刑法相關規定之規範內容與性質,以及沒入與沒收之標的是否為同一特定財物或僅為財產上利益等觀點,嘗試於現行行政罰法之規範脈絡下,探求可能之解決途徑,並對最高行政法院 107 年度判字第 732 號行政判決及相關判決進行評析。
英文關鍵詞: Administrative Penalty Actconfiscation of illegal benefitsnarrowly defined confiscationdeprivation of illegal benefitsforfeiture
英文摘要: Since the enforcement of Taiwan’s Administrative Penalty Act in 2006, compared to the absent relevant regulations of confiscation in the Criminal Code at that time, the Administrative Penalty Act takes example from the German Act on Regulatory Offenses at the beginning of legislating which makes the regulations of illegal benefit deprivation and forfeiture below Article 18 in the Administrative Act more complete. As a result of the the absent regulations of confiscation in the Criminal Code at that time, especially on the lacuna in the regulation of illegal benefit confiscation, disputes regarding interpretation and applicability of regulations on the Administrative Penalty Act and the Criminal Code happen less frequently in relevant cases.
However, after the amendment of Criminal Code in 2015 regarding the regulation of confiscation, the concurrence in different relevant cases between the regulations of confiscation in the Criminal Code and the regulations of illegal benefit deprivation and forfeiture in the Administrative Penalty Act has frequently and inevitably led to disputes regarding interpretation and applicability.
Using the transaction and occurrence for the Judgment No. 732 of Supreme Administrative Court of 2018 and relevant judgments, this study starts from the aforementioned problem (the concurrence between the regulation of forfeiture in Administrative Penalty Act and the regulation of confiscation in Criminal Code) with typing various possible concurrence situations in cases between the regulations of illegal benefit deprivation and forfeiture in the current Administrative Penalty Act and the regulations of confiscation in the Criminal Code as well as the interpretation and applicability of derivative regulations.
Furthermore, by examining the content and nature of Administrative Penalty Act and Criminal Code as well as the perspective of whether or not the subject of confiscation and forfeiture is the same specific property or merely just the property benefit, this study sought to find possible solutions under the context of the current Administrative Penalty Act. The Judgment No. 732 of Supreme Administrative Court of 2018 and relevant judgments were also analyzed and evaluated.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、系爭個案事實概要與法院見解
  一、事實概要
  二、北高行判決見解
  三、最高行判決見解
  四、士林地院刑事判決見解
  五、小結
參、刑法與行政罰法相關規定之規範內容與性質
  一、刑法部分
  二、行政罰法部分
肆、「性質」與「標的物類型」作為個案中規範適用問題之解決觀點
  一、行政罰法第26條第1項但書規定之重新詮釋
  二、因同一特定財物作為沒收與沒入標的所生之競合情形
  三、因財產上利益作為沒收與沒入標的所生之競合情形
伍、「法律效果」作為個案中規範適用問題之解決觀點
  一、比例原則之考量與具體適用
  二、新刑法利得沒收規定與行政罰法罰鍰裁處規定之競合及解決
  三、新刑法利得沒收規定與行政罰法利得追繳規定之競合及解決
  四、新刑法第三人利得沒收規定與行政罰法沒入規定之競合及解決
  五、新刑法追繳價額規定與行政罰法沒入價額規定之競合及解決
陸、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
返回功能列