法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 食品攙偽與假冒行為之刑責-以「鴨肝代鵝肝案」為例(A Brief Analysis of Criminal Liability of Adulterating or Counterfeiting Food Products-Take the Case of Replacing Foie Gras with Duck Liver As an Example)
編著譯者: 黃惠婷
出版日期: 2020.09
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦醫事法報告第 47 期 /32-44 頁
頁  數: 9 點閱次數: 985
下載點數: 36 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 黃惠婷
關 鍵 詞: 抽象危險犯食品假冒攙偽
中文摘要: 食品安全衛生管理法第 49 條第 1 項攙偽假冒罪是行為犯,也是抽象危險犯。有學者主張攙入不具毒性或有害物質的行為,不成立本罪。另有學者反對目的性限縮解釋,本罪保障人民健康外,尚有免受劣質食品的欺瞞與食品來源正確期待,行為是否該當攙偽或假冒,無須檢驗是否有致危害人體健康之虞。實務判決於 2016 年統一見解,認為本罪係為維護民眾健康、消費者權益等法益,只要在食品中攙偽或假冒,即有立法者擬制之危險,法院毋庸為實質判斷。
英文關鍵詞: offender of abstract dangerfoodcounterfeitadulteration
英文摘要: According to Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of “the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation,” the crime of adulterating or counterfeiting food products is a conduct crime and also an offender of abstract danger. Some academic claimed that the act of adulterating non-toxic or harmless substances does not constitute this offense. Nevertheless, some scholars opposed the purpose limited explanation, because this crime does, not only protect the health of the citizenry, but also have the prospect of keeping off the deception of low-quality food and of realizing the correct source of food. Thus, whether the act should be adulterated or counterfeited, there is no need to determine whether there is a risk of injury to human wellness. In 2016, the court decisions unified the opinions that this crime is to protect the health of the people and consumer rights, etc., so as long as food products were adulterated or counterfeited, it will cause the danger feint in law, and the court does not demand to conduct substantive examination.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、鴨肝代鵝肝案
一、案例事實
二、判決要旨
(一)臺灣高等法院高雄分院 107 年度上訴字第 1053 號
(二)最高法院 108 年度台上字第 3662 號
參、攙偽假冒罪之適用疑義
一、爭點
(一)學者見解
(二)實務見解
二、本文立場
(一)抽象危險犯的本質
(二)對抽象危險犯為目的性限縮之疑義
(三)「情節輕微」條款之刑罰調節功能
(四)攙偽、假冒與詐欺之區辨
肆、簡評「鴨肝代鵝肝案」-代結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列