| dc.contributor | 法律系 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 李聖傑 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | Lee, Sheng-chieh | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2019-07 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 18-一月-2021 15:28:14 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 18-一月-2021 15:28:14 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 18-一月-2021 15:28:14 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133576 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 刑法第 190 條之 1 修法後最核心的問題在於，當立法刑事政策以舊法時期實務對於該條適用之具體危險判斷採嚴格解釋，使得相關環境污染行為不易以刑罰制裁，而刪除「致生公共危險」的成罪要件，不再呈現其「具體危險犯」的犯罪性質時，在規範的釋義操作中，相關構成要件要素應該如何涵攝在具體案例的適用，才不會出現刑罰過度前置現象。本文認為刑法笫 190 條之 1 有其特殊的修法背景與修法所要克服之實務適用困境，但為了避免刑罰過度前置的發動，必須在規範適用時以污染狀態強調為抽象危險犯的危險結果，並不需要拘泥在固有意義之實害結果的概念框架。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The core issue after the amendment of Article 190-1 under the Criminal Code is how to avoid the penalty prerequisite problem when applying rules in actual cases while the said offense is no longer a concrete offense as the “endangering public safety” element is deleted according to the legislative criminal policy, which states that judicial practice under the old laws took a strict interpretation approach that prevented the polluting behavior from criminal charges.This article opines that Article 190-1 has its own unique law-amending background and obstacles for judicial practice’s application, however, to avoid the penalty prerequisite problem, it`s necessary to emphasize the pollution status as the offender of abstract danger’s result of danger without being restricted by the conceptual framework of actual damages. | |
| dc.format.extent | 9217866 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 月旦法學雜誌, Vol.290, pp.69-82 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 刑法第 190 條之 1 ; 環境刑法 ; 環境法益 ; 污染結果 ; 危險結果 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Article 190-1 of the Criminal Code ; Environmental Criminal Law ; Legal Interest of the Environment ; Result of Pollution ; Result of Danger | |
| dc.title (題名) | 刑法第190條之1的釋義思考 | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
