| 關 鍵 詞： |
equal punishment for one act；principle of proportionality；drivers license suspension；drunk driving；fundamental rights |
| 中文摘要： |
政府為解決違法酒駕，歷來修法即不斷提出各種手段，如在處罰條例中提高罰鍰等。此外，則更納入刑罰。惟此是否會過度限制人民之權利，應有檢討之必要。本文先從違法酒駕與行政罰間之關係出發，探討納入刑罰後，是否影響原有行政罰功能之發揮？其次，即以高雄高等行政法院 110 年度訴字第 462 號判決為例，探要求人民應完成一定酒駕防制教育及酒癮治療後，始得考照之規定，有無過度限制人民行動自由等之可能？期藉此在法治上能有所助益。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
一行為不二罰；比例原則；吊銷駕照；酒駕；基本權 |
| 英文摘要： |
In order to solve the problem of illegal drunk driving, the government has always revised the law and continuously proposed various means, such as increasing fines in the penalty regulations. In addition, penalties are included. However, it is necessary to review whether this will excessively restrict people’s rights. This article first starts from the relationship between illegal drunk driving and administrative penalties, and explores whether the inclusion of penalties will affect the original function of administrative penalties? Secondly, taking the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court’s Judgment No. 462 of 2021 as an example, it explores whether the requirement that people must complete certain drunk driving prevention education and alcohol addiction treatment before they can obtain a license is an excessive restriction on people’s freedom of movement, etc. possible? I hope this can be helpful in the rule of law.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、違法酒駕與行政罰之關係
一、不斷提升行政罰額度及刑罰之加重與擴張
二、行政罰或刑罰之立法裁量
三、行政罰與刑罰之失衡
參、高雄高等行政法院 110 年度訴字第 462 號判決評析
一、本案事實及主要爭點
二、判決內容摘要
（一）依修法沿革及立法理由
（二）以考領駕照前需先完成酒駕防制教育或酒癮治療部分，非屬行政罰
肆、判決評析
一、應完成酒駕防制教育及酒癮治療，始得再考領駕照，與人民基本權之關係
二、採教育及治療手段改善人民酒駕之行為，有其特定之目的
三、憲法第 23 條規定及比例原則之檢驗
四、一行為不二罰原則之適用及個案過苛之可能
伍、結語
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|