法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 非法執行醫療業務案:集合犯的認定與混合的包括一罪(A Case about Practicing Medical Treatments Illegally: The Identification of the Collective Offence and the General Inclusive Offence)
編著譯者: 洪兆承
出版日期: 2021.11
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦醫事法報告第 61 期 /64-83 頁
頁  數: 13 點閱次數: 271
下載點數: 52 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 洪兆承
關 鍵 詞: 集合犯想像競合夾結效果包括一罪數罪併罰
中文摘要: 本件被告與護理師共謀,先為病患進行注射後,再由被告記載不實病歷與處方箋。本文主要針對實務先將醫師法第 28 條與刑法第 215 條之業務登載不實當成集合犯後,再論兩罪成立想像競合的結論提出評釋。分別就本案所涉法條是否該當集合犯的定義、若不該當集合犯則是否可以夾結效果論以想像競合、若根本不該當想像競合,為何歷審判決並未對此結論提出異議等問題,結合日本學說實務提出分析與觀察。
英文關鍵詞: collective offenceSimilar ideal concurrenceeffect of parenthesisinclusive offencepunishmentcombined punishment for several offences
英文摘要: Under a conspiracy, the accused in this case and a nurse injected a patient and then the accused made false record and prescription. This essay would be a commentary of the judgment, in which paragraph 28 Physicians Act and the offence of making a false entry according to paragraph 215 Criminal Law were treated as a collective offence firstly and then the similar ideal concurrence by the legal praxis. In accordance with Japanese legal theories and praxis, it would be the topics analyzed and observed in this essay whether the issued paragraphs deserve to be the definition of collective offence, whether the similar ideal concurrence could be operated by the effect of parenthesis if not deserve, why the judgments in trial levels didn’t have any objection against this kind of conclusion if these two offences wouldn’t be the similar ideal concurrence at all.
目  次: 壹、案件概述
一、事實關係
二、歷審經過
三、本案判旨
貳、判決評析
一、問題意識
二、集合犯的內涵與本案之問題
(一)集合犯的定位
(二)集合犯的基準與本案之問題
三、其他論以想像競合之可能與其問題
(一)以夾結效果理解本案結結論的可能
(二)本案適用夾結效果之疑問與其問題
四、合理評價之必要性
(一)合理評價的必要性與本案之難題
(二)混合的包括一罪的討論與問題
參、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列