| 關 鍵 詞： |
食品安全衛生管理法；攙偽假冒；食品刑法；健康法益；抽象危險犯；食品健康安全 |
| 中文摘要： |
重新檢視現行食品安全衛生管理法第 49 條第 1 項規定之解釋與適用：以食品健康安全法益的保護為詮釋基礎。
近年來有關於食品安全衛生管理法第 49 條攙偽或假冒規定解釋爭議，即使是最高法院已經在 2016 年作成了刑事庭會議決議，至今還是尚未停歇。其原因或許不只是因為攙偽或假冒規定的模糊難解，可能更涉及到該法第 49 條第 1 項整項規定的定位不明問題。本文嘗試跳脫過去文獻只聚焦於攙偽或假冒規定的視角，從該條項規定與同條第 2 項規定的保護範疇比較出發，重新找尋其定位，並據此全面檢視該條項規定當中四種不同構成要件類型的適用方向，以及該條項後段輕微條款的適用基礎。
最終，本文則是指出該條項規定的保護法益為食品健康安全此一集體法益，其所包含的各該構成要件類型，都必須從食品健康安全法益的侵害行為作為出發點，並以各該行為是否足以引發社會性的集體健康風險來作為解釋的依歸。也唯有如此解釋，才能使食安法第 49 條第 1 項規定內容不再與同條第 2 項規定的部分內容完全重疊，並且賦予這兩項規定各自獨立且得以實質區隔的規範意義與任務：在食安法第 49 條第 2 項規定顯然是保護個人健康法益之規定的同時，同條第 1 項規定則是保護食品健康安全此一集體法益的規定。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation；Counterfeiting and Imitation；Criminal Food Law；Legal Interest to Health；Abstract Offence of Endangerment；Health Safety of Food |
| 英文摘要： |
Although the Supreme Court has already decided in 2016 on the application and interpretation of the facts of counterfeiting and imitation of food in § 49 I of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, the dispute about this issue remains. The reason may not only be due to the high uncertainty of the vagueness of the provisions relating to fake or counterfeit, but also involve the issue of the unclear positioning of the entire provision of § 49 I of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation. In this paper, the focus will no longer be on the facts of counterfeiting and imitation of food. In order to examine the new position of § 49 I of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, it is rather assumed here to compare the respective facts in § 49 I and II of the aforementioned Act. Then the method for the applications of all elements of § 49 I of the Act can be determined.
Lastly, it is found that § 49 I of the Act may only protect the collective interest of 'health safety of food'. Each of the constituent elements contained in it must start from the violation of the legal interests of food health and safety, and the explanation should be based on whether the behaviour is sufficient to cause social collective health risks.
Only with such an interpretation can the content of § 49 I of the Act no longer completely overlap with the part of the content of section 2 of the same article, and give these two regulations the normative meaning of being independent and substantially separated. While § 49 II of the Act is clearly a provision for the protection of the legal interests of personal health, the first section of the same article is a provision for the protection of the collective legal interests of food health and safety.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、導論
貳、食安法第 49 條第1項規定的定位困境
一、食安法第 49 條第 1、2 項規定的規範重疊關係
二、食安法第 49 條第 1 項規定的定性
三、「後決議時代」的最高法院見解
四、小結：問題之所在
參、食安法第 49 條第 1 項規定的重新定性與解釋
一、本文見解：食安法第 49 條第 1 項作為保護食品集體法益的規定
二、集體法益導向的食安法第 49 條第 1 項規定解釋策略
肆、結論及建議
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|