| dc.contributor | 法律系 | zh_Tw |
| dc.creator (作者) | 詹鎮榮 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2016-12 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 28-三月-2018 17:17:11 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 28-三月-2018 17:17:11 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 28-三月-2018 17:17:11 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/116597 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 行政罰法施行迄今已逾十週年，惟實務與學說對於「行政罰」之概念及種類認定卻爭議不斷。本文考量到實務運作上對於裁罰性不利處分概念形式套用之缺失，以及刑法沒收新制對行政罰法所規定沒入之衝擊，就「裁罰性不利處分」及「沒入」兩種行政罰類型進行規範面及立法政策面之檢討。就前者而言，本文認為其作為行政罰之種類應有續存於行政罰法中之必要性。但為避免實務適用時望文生義，建議刪除現行第 2 條各款中對於裁罰性不利處分之例示規定。至於後者，縱然新刑法將沒收去從刑化，但鑒於沒入在行政專法中具標的、對象及要件之多樣性，行政罰法應無跟進，將沒入一律「去行政罰化」之必要性與正當性。即使是「增訂非裁罰性沒入」方案，本文亦認為實益不大，現階段並不建議。為配合刑法沒收新制之施行，行政罰法應該只要在最小幅度內修正第 26 條第 1 項規定即為已足。亦即將該條項但書現有文字「得沒入之物而未經法院宣告沒收」予以刪除，並微調相關文字即可。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Though it has been more than ten years since the Administrative Penalty Act came into force, the controversies over the definition and classification of “administrative penalty” has never settled in both legal practice and academia community. This article considers the flaws when applying the concept of adverse actions of punitive nature in form, and the impact on the Administrative Penalty Act arose from the amendment regarding forfeiture in the Criminal Code, and therefore provides insights regarding two types of administrative penalty – “adverse actions of punitive nature” and “forfeiture”-- from both regulatory and legislative perspectives. As to the regulatory view of this issue, this article suggests that it still holds the essentiality in adopting the classification of administrative penalty. However, in order to avoid misconstruing or confused by the literal meaning of the regulation in legal practice, this article suggests that the exemplary provisions in Article 2 of the Administrative Penalty Act in action shall be omitted. On the other hand, regarding the legislative policy, notwithstanding forfeiture had been decriminalized in the Criminal Code, in light of the fact that, in the administrative law, forfeiture is employed onto varied object, subject and specific requirements, the Administrative Penalty Act has no necessity or legitimate reason to eliminate regulations of forfeiture unlike the amendment of the Criminal Code. And this article also suggests that it is not recommended and worthwhile to adopt “the non- punitive forfeiture” into the Administrative Penalty Act under current situation. With reference to the harmonizing with the new amendment of forfeiture in the Criminal Code, it is recommended to modify Paragraph 1, Article 26 of the Administrative Penalty Act within the least extent, which is to remove the proviso, “that no forfeiture is pronounced by the court over the things that may be forfeited because of the act,” of the said Article, and adjust the wording correspondingly. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 129 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 法學叢刊, Vol.61, No.4, pp.1-29 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 行政罰;行政罰之種類;裁罰性不利處分;沒入;刑法沒收新制;保安處分;一行為不二罰原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Administrative penalty;the classification of administrative penalty;adverse action of punitive nature;forfeiture;amendment of forfeiture in the Criminal Code;rehabilitative disposition;the principle of double jeopardy | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | The Review of the Legislative Policy Concerning the Definition and Classification of Administrative Penalty－Focusing on the Adverse Actions of Punitive Nature and Forfeiture | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 行政罰定義與種類之立法政策上檢討――以裁罰性不利處分與沒入為中心 | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
