學術產出-NSC Projects
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 刑法分則註釋研究---妨害秩序罪(第149~160條) 其他題名 Comments on the Criminal Code Article 149~160 作者 段重民 貢獻者 法律研究所 關鍵詞 妨害秩序罪;聚眾;聚眾不解散;聚眾施強暴脅迫;恐嚇公眾;妨害全法集會;煽惑犯罪;參與犯罪之結社;私招軍隊;包攬訴訟;冒行公務員職權;汙辱國徽國旗
Offenses of interference with public order;Open assembly日期 1997 上傳時間 12-Aug-2014 17:44:38 (UTC+8) 摘要 本註釋研究就刑法分則第七章妨害秩序罪之內容予以分析;就其十二個條文中各罪之立法理由、規範目的及解釋適用、與外國立法例,做比較研究。其中最具有爭議性的是第一百五十四條『參與犯罪結社罪』,因近年來黑道幫派猖狂,其組織化、企業化的經營賭場、地下錢莊、色情行業、販毒、走私、甚至介入公共工程等經濟活動,更有以暴力操縱選舉,嚴重衝擊社會治安及民主法治之發展,而刑法第一百五十四條規定過於簡略,政府於民國八十五年十一月二十二日立法院第三屆第二會期第十九次會議通過並自公布日施行"組織犯罪防治條例"全文共十九條。本文並就此法之制定經過與其構成要件,參照外國立法例,作一比較說明。 本研究的另一個重點是:第一百六十條『侮辱國旗、國徽及國父遺像罪』,此種政治層面與法律認定之界面問題,在英美等進步立憲國家,皆認為是憲法上的象徵性語言,被視為應在憲法言論自由之保障之內。本文將介紹美國聯邦最高法院在十九八九年及一九九０年的兩個案例,明確表示對於藉焚燒國旗以示抗議的行為不能處罰。而一九八九年代的"國旗保護法"也被宣告為違憲無效。 本研究並分析本章許多條文,皆因刑法於民國二十年間當時之時代背景而制定,如今社會變遷,已無存在之必要,如:刑法第一百五十五條『煽惑軍人背叛罪』及刑法第一百五十六條『私招軍隊罪』,現在(平時)不可能發生之犯罪行為,建議廢止。另第一百五十七條『挑唆或包攬訴訟罪』,現行律師法第四十八條已有處罰規定,亦建議廢止本條文。
This Commentary discussed the Chapter 7 of the Chinese Criminal Code, namely, Offenses of Interference With Public Order, which includes Section 149--160, imposes punishment for illegal gathering in an open assembly with intent to commit violence or employ threat and who does not disperse after having been ordered three times or more it do so by a competent public official (Section 149, 150); and the most important provision of Section 154, which punish active membership a organized criminal sect; last year (1996) Taiwan Government promulgated the Taiwanese version of RICO (Organized Crime Control Act) in response to the gradually worsened organized criminal activities. This study compared the original Section 154 and the New RICO among with other advance countries` similar provision. This study further put emphasis on the section 160, which is similar to the Flag Protection Act of U.S.A in 1989, and subsequently been held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, for violation of the 1/sup st/ Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause. This study would also suggest the abolition of section 155, 156, 157. Which was obsolete and had been replaced with better and modern legislation.關聯 行政院國家科學委員會
計畫編號NSC86-2414-H004-009資料類型 report dc.contributor 法律研究所 en_US dc.creator (作者) 段重民 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 1997 en_US dc.date.accessioned 12-Aug-2014 17:44:38 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 12-Aug-2014 17:44:38 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 12-Aug-2014 17:44:38 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/68637 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本註釋研究就刑法分則第七章妨害秩序罪之內容予以分析;就其十二個條文中各罪之立法理由、規範目的及解釋適用、與外國立法例,做比較研究。其中最具有爭議性的是第一百五十四條『參與犯罪結社罪』,因近年來黑道幫派猖狂,其組織化、企業化的經營賭場、地下錢莊、色情行業、販毒、走私、甚至介入公共工程等經濟活動,更有以暴力操縱選舉,嚴重衝擊社會治安及民主法治之發展,而刑法第一百五十四條規定過於簡略,政府於民國八十五年十一月二十二日立法院第三屆第二會期第十九次會議通過並自公布日施行"組織犯罪防治條例"全文共十九條。本文並就此法之制定經過與其構成要件,參照外國立法例,作一比較說明。 本研究的另一個重點是:第一百六十條『侮辱國旗、國徽及國父遺像罪』,此種政治層面與法律認定之界面問題,在英美等進步立憲國家,皆認為是憲法上的象徵性語言,被視為應在憲法言論自由之保障之內。本文將介紹美國聯邦最高法院在十九八九年及一九九０年的兩個案例,明確表示對於藉焚燒國旗以示抗議的行為不能處罰。而一九八九年代的"國旗保護法"也被宣告為違憲無效。 本研究並分析本章許多條文,皆因刑法於民國二十年間當時之時代背景而制定,如今社會變遷,已無存在之必要,如:刑法第一百五十五條『煽惑軍人背叛罪』及刑法第一百五十六條『私招軍隊罪』,現在(平時)不可能發生之犯罪行為,建議廢止。另第一百五十七條『挑唆或包攬訴訟罪』,現行律師法第四十八條已有處罰規定,亦建議廢止本條文。 en_US dc.description.abstract (摘要) This Commentary discussed the Chapter 7 of the Chinese Criminal Code, namely, Offenses of Interference With Public Order, which includes Section 149--160, imposes punishment for illegal gathering in an open assembly with intent to commit violence or employ threat and who does not disperse after having been ordered three times or more it do so by a competent public official (Section 149, 150); and the most important provision of Section 154, which punish active membership a organized criminal sect; last year (1996) Taiwan Government promulgated the Taiwanese version of RICO (Organized Crime Control Act) in response to the gradually worsened organized criminal activities. This study compared the original Section 154 and the New RICO among with other advance countries` similar provision. This study further put emphasis on the section 160, which is similar to the Flag Protection Act of U.S.A in 1989, and subsequently been held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, for violation of the 1/sup st/ Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause. This study would also suggest the abolition of section 155, 156, 157. Which was obsolete and had been replaced with better and modern legislation. en_US dc.format.extent 244 bytes - dc.format.mimetype text/html - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.relation (關聯) 行政院國家科學委員會 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 計畫編號NSC86-2414-H004-009 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 妨害秩序罪;聚眾;聚眾不解散;聚眾施強暴脅迫;恐嚇公眾;妨害全法集會;煽惑犯罪;參與犯罪之結社;私招軍隊;包攬訴訟;冒行公務員職權;汙辱國徽國旗 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Offenses of interference with public order;Open assembly en_US dc.title (題名) 刑法分則註釋研究---妨害秩序罪(第149~160條) zh_TW dc.title.alternative (其他題名) Comments on the Criminal Code Article 149~160 en_US dc.type (資料類型) report en
