法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 刑罰與行政秩序罰之競合問題-以大統長基食品公司案為例(The Concurrent Issues about the Criminal Penalty and the Administrative Punishment-For Example for the Datong Food Company Case)
編著譯者: 王服清
出版日期: 2015.12
刊登出處: 台灣/法治與公共治理學報第 3 期 /71-121 頁
頁  數: 46 點閱次數: 134
下載點數: 184 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 王服清
關 鍵 詞: 食品安全刑事罰與行政罰競合問題一事不二罰大統長基食品公法人犯罪能力
中文摘要: 大統公司之代表人及受僱人因犯食品衛生管理法第 49 條第 1 項之罪,大統公司部分亦科以罰金(同法第 49 條第 5 項)。臺灣彰化地方法院 102 年易字第 1074 號(民國 102 年 12 月 16 日)刑事判決認為,大統公司非犯罪行為人,大統公司也無法與代表人成立共犯,故大統公司之銷售得款,並無刑法沒收規定之適用。大統判決的疑點有兩點:其一,法院計算負責人和大統公司的犯罪行為個數採用集合犯,是否違反「一罪一罰原則」,應當計為多次而以數罪併罰來加重處罰?其二,大統判決:「法人非犯罪行為人,故無沒收規定之適用」之見解是否混淆了「立法論」與「解釋論」兩個不同層次的問題?繼而,2014 年 7 月 8 日衛生福利部訴願決定書(衛部法字第 1030117520 號)認為,科以大統公司罰金 5,000 萬元在案,則就大統公司製售油品有攙偽、假冒之同一行為,以裁處書加重裁處大統公司 18 億 5,000 萬元罰緩,即有一事二罰之情形,顯與行政罰法第 26 條之規定意旨有違,原處分應予撤銷。如此訴願決定之見解,即產生一旦大統公司科以罰金,即無法刑法沒收且亦無法裁處罰緩之困境,其解決之道有多方爭論,也引發 2014 年 10 月立法院食品安全衛生管理法修正案之討論。本論文針對以上問題詳細逐一探究,最後也在結論部分歸結本文重點。
英文關鍵詞: Food SafetyCriminal Penalties and Administrative PunishmentConcurrent Issuesne bis in idemDatong Food CompanyCriminal Ability of a Legal Person
英文摘要: Because the representative and servants in the Datong Company were found guilty of the crime due to the violation of the Food Sanitation Management Law Article 49 Paragraph 1, the Datong Company should be also imposed a criminal fine on him(with Article 49 paragraph 5). Taiwan Changhua District Court No. 102/Yi Zi 1074 (the Republic of China on December 16 102) had ruled that not only the Datong Company was non-criminal, but also he could not set up an accomplice with representative, so the company's sales could not be applied to the forfeiture provisions of the Criminal Code.There are still two questionable points in the Datong Company case. First, the court had calculated the committed number of criminal acts about the representative and the Datong Company by using the acts-collection. This issue is whether the calculation of acts-collection is a violation of the "one act-one penalty principle" or not? Should the acts-collection be counted as many times criminals and be grafted to aggravating sanction. Second, the Datong Company case decision had verdiced " a legal person be non-criminal, so forfeiture provisions be not applicable" . The problem is whether this opinion is a confusing view two of different levels between "legislation theory" and "interpretation theory" or not? Then, because the Datong Company had been imposed a $ 50 million criminal fines on him on file, therefore the Health Ministry Administrative Appeal Decision on the July 8, 2014(Health Ministry Act Zi No. 1030117520) has believed that the above same act of the manufacturing mix and selling false about the Datong Company was imposed a 1.8 billion administrative punishment by aggravated sanction on him, so that the situation regarding the two punishments of the same act was contrary to the intention of provisions about the Article 26 of the administrative Punishment Law, the original administrative punishment should be abolished. Such the Health Ministry Administrative Appeal Decision leads to the dilemma problem: Once the Datong Company should be imposed a $ 50 million criminal fines on him, the forfeiture provisions should be not applicable to the company, and the Datong Company can not be imposed a 1.8 billion administrative punishment.
The above controversyhas also led to the multi-channel solutions and the legislature discussion about the FoodSafety and HealthManagement Act Amendmentin October 2014. This thesis will explorethe aboveissues one by one and in detail, and finally the conclusion of this article is also induce several important points.
目  次: 壹、問題提出
貳、大統長基食品公司案
一、犯罪事實
二、判決重點
三、判決問題
參、刑事罰與行政罰競合
一、民國 94 年 02 月 05 日(舊)行政罰法第 26 條
二、民國 100 年 11 月 23 日修正後行政罰法第 26 條
三、行政機關與司法機關之業務聯繫
肆、刑罰與行政秩序罰競合之困境與解決爭議
一、行政罰鍰之合法性
二、行政罰鍰之撤銷
三、無法課處行政罰鍰之困境解決
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
返回功能列