法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 由公共危害概念論行為與制裁之立法裁量及法實踐(From the Common nuisance Discuss Action and Punishment's Legislative Discretion)
編著譯者: 蔡震榮余修智
出版日期: 2021.04
刊登出處: 台灣/軍法專刊第 67 卷 第 2 期 /45-74 頁
頁  數: 30 點閱次數: 345
下載點數: 120 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 軍法專刊社 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 違反義務公共危害行政罰刑事罰立法裁量
中文摘要: 基於刑法最後手段性之要求,對於刑罰制裁手段之使用,僅於其他輕微之制裁手段尚不足以抑制此種不法行為所造成之社會損害等不得已情況下,方得以實施之。因此,不法行為之制裁,除非其不法內涵已達到科處刑事罰之程度,否則仍應以行政罰為制裁手段。然而,囿於現代工商社會進步,近年來諸如食安事件、氣爆事件有關公共危害之事件頻傳,涉及人民權益甚鉅,學說及實務就此極度關切,政府在政策考量及民意壓力等因素影響下,卻陷入「刑罰萬能」、「治亂世用重典」之迷思;但另一方面,卻因刑事審判結果過輕不足以達到制裁效果,卻有意廢除刑事制裁改採取較重之行政罰。此乃涉及行政罰及刑事罰制裁手段之選擇,其標準界限在何?是否可基於實務上考量作為界限,有詳加探究之必要。此外,在法實踐面也出現問題,雖然在刑法手段上,也可以採取沒收或不法利得徵收,但法院或檢察官卻忽略採取這些手段,產生徒法不足以自行之情形。本文欲從法實踐面加以探討,以實務訪查檢察官、法院與對上述人員問卷調查方式,實際瞭解法實踐之情形。爰此,本文擬透過比較德國法有關學說與實務案例之整理,以及我國之實務訪查,就上開議題之意義及內涵進一步探究。希冀在對應我國法規發展以及法實踐脈絡後,得以釐清前揭問題,並提供立法建議作為未來修法之方向。
英文關鍵詞: Keywords Breach of a DutyCommon Nuisance,Administrative PunishmentCriminal SanctionLegislative Discretion
英文摘要: The last resort of the request based on criminal law, penal sanctions for the use of only the other minor sanctions insufficient to inhibit damage to the bottom of last resort community caused by the wrongful act of such implemented it. Therefore, Wrongdoing for sanctions, should the level of unlawful degree standard, another word, that is, unless the extent of illegal connotation has been reached at the criminal penalties Branch, otherwise should continue to administrative penalties for sanctions.However, due to modern industrial society caught progress in recent years, such as food safety explosion hazards of public events related to the event of success, the interests of the people involved is very heavy, Impact Across the doctrine and practice of this indifference, government policy and public opinion pressure and other considerations under factors, fell into"universal punishment","heavy penalties in times of trouble,"the myth of;but on the other hand, because of the outcome of the criminal trial is too light is insufficient to achieve the effect of sanctions, but it intends to abolish criminal sanctions take a heavier administrative money penalty. In this connection, is amassing involves choosing administrative penalty of sanctions and criminal penalties, the standard limits in any event, whether as a boundary based on practical considerations, there is the need to explore in detail. In addition, there is a problem in the law practice surface, although the criminal law means, you can also take the confiscation or expropriation of illegal profits, but the court or prosecutor has ignored these means of taking, therefore, insufficient to produce the only law in their own circumstances, want to be explored in this article from the law practice surface to practice visits prosecutors, court staff and the above questionnaire survey, the actual practice of the law to understand the situation. Based on this, the article about the theory and practice of hope through the case of Germany, Japan and mainland finishing, comparing the merits of the legal system, and then discussed the introduction of a"The Legislative Discretion and Practice of Administrative punishment and Criminal sanction on the concept of Common nuisance".
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、公共危害與法制
一、現代公共危害之出現與關注
二、公共危害作為法律概念?
參、不法行為制裁制度及其競合
一、我國對於不法行為之制裁制度
二、一行為不二罰原則
(一)行為數之判斷
(二)一行為不二罰立基於法治國原則
(三)司法院釋字第 754 號解釋
(四)有關行政罰法第 24 條一行為不二罰司法解釋之分析
(五)管轄機關之確定
三、刑事優先原則
(一)行政罰法第 26 條之性質
(二)德國法與我國法在刑事優先原則適用程序之差異
(三)刑事優先有無例外
(四)司法實務之處理情形
(五)沒收修正與刑事優先原則之適用
四、裁處罰鍰與不法利得之追繳
(一)行政罰法第 18 條第 1 項及第 2 項之關係
(二)不法利得追繳性質分析
(三)行政罰法第 18 條第 2 項不得單獨作為裁罰之依據
肆、結語
一、立法裁量
(一)行政罰間之競合
(二)刑事優先原則
(三)司法院解釋
二、法實踐
(一)案件調查與移送
(二)制裁公共危害行為之手段抉擇
三、總結
附錄、我國對於公共危害制裁之實務及其困境(訪談內容節錄)
一、進行調查程序時所遇之問題
(一)檢調單位
(二)行政主管機關
二、制裁公共危害行為之手段抉擇(檢警單位)
(一)某市警官
(二)某檢察署檢察官
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
返回功能列