- 期刊
領海與懲治走私條例之法律問題
A Critical Review of the Implementation within Territorial Waters of Taiwan's Law on Smuggling
摘要
一、十二海浬之領海不應作為走私既遂未遂之判斷基準（一）懲治走私條例第二條第一項規定「私運管制物品進口出口逾公告數額者，處七年以下有期徒刑。」（二）司法實務一向認為所謂「進口」或「出口」，是以進出「國境」或「國界」為準。在船舶走私，是以進出十二海浬之領海線為其基準。就進口而言，進入十二海浬之領海線，為「私運進口既遂」，尚未進入十二海浬時，是「私運進口未遂」；就出口而言，駛離十二海浬領海線後，才是「私運出口既遂」，尚未駛離十二海浬前，均為「私運出口未遂」。（三）筆者認為所謂「進口」或「出口」，應以進出「港口」或「起岸」、「下岸」為準，始合乎立法之本意。就進口而言，進港或起岸，為「私運進口既遂」；進港或起岸前，為「私運進口未遂」；就出口而言，出港或下岸駛離，為「私運出口既遂」；出港或下岸駛離前，皆為「私運出口未遂」。（四）實務之見解，就進口而言，將尚未進港或起岸之「私運進口物品未遂」之行為，評價為「運送走私進口物品」之行為，有重罪輕罰之嫌。就出口而言，將已經出港或下岸駛離之「私運出口物品既遂」行為，評價為「私運出口物品未遂」之行為，亦有重罪輕罰之嫌。二、走私行為不必犯罪化，懲治走私條例可以考慮廢除按刑事立法上之「法益原則」要求任何行為要加以犯罪化，必因其法益受到侵害或危險。行為如未造成「法益侵害」或「法益危險」，則無將之犯罪化之必要。查走私行為並未造成任何人生命、身體、自由、名譽、財產法益之侵害或危險，行政處罰已經足夠，並無保留懲治走私條例賦予刑罰之必要。何況，走私毒品或槍彈，已有毒品危害防制條例及槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例可資規範，走私其他物品，有何處以刑罰之必要？是以懲治走私條例之除罪化，值得考慮。
並列摘要
Abstract of Legal Problems on Territorial Waters and Law of Punishment of Smuggling Twelve (12) sea miles Territorial Waters in determining the definition of smuggling, accomplished or unaccomplished, shall not be the judgmental standard. Article 2, Section 1 of the Law on Punishment of Smuggling states: ”A person transporting restrict goods in excess of permitted amount shall be punished with imprisonment for a period not more than seven (7) years.”Judicial practice often holds: What is called ”import” or ”export” is determined by in or out the ”territory” or ”national boundaries”. As far as ”import” is concerned, entrance into territorial waters within 12 sea miles is considered sufficient, whereas failing to enter within 12 sea miles is does not amount to ”smuggling”. With regard to ”export”, departing from the territorial sea at 12 sea miles is considered ”smuggling accomplished”, while yet not departing from 12 sea miles is ”smuggling unaccomplished”.This author considers where is the so-called ”import” or ”export” should be decided by ”port”, or ”set sail” or ”go ashore” so as to conform to the original intention of the legislation. As far as the ”import” is concerned, ”enter port” or ”set sail' shall be considered smuggling accomplished, while yet prior to ”enter port” or ”set sail” is smuggling unaccomplished. As for ”export”, ”leave port” or ”go ashore” shall be considered smuggling accomplished, while prior to ”leave port” or ”go ashore” is smuggling unaccomplished.Import seemingly deems high crime to be a lesser offence when the conduct of smuggling unaccomplished is yet to ”enter port” or ”set sail”, but it is deemed same as transporting smuggled goods. As far as the ”export” is concerned, it also deems high crime to be a lesser offence when the conduct of smuggling export goods accomplished has been evaluated by smuggling export goods unaccomplished.The Law on Punishment of Smuggling may need to be abolished since smuggling is not necessarily a criminal act. According to the principle of legal benefits, it is required, as protected by law, that any act considered a crime bear an interest that endangered the legal interest of a person. Conduct that has not yet infringed a person's legal interest or be endangered to such person, it is not necessary to deem it as crime. Smuggling has not given rise to infringement or danger to human life, body, freedom, reputation, or property. As such, administrative punishment will suffice, and there is no need to retain the criminal penalty clause under The Law on Punishment of Smuggling. Moreover, smuggling drugs or guns already have other regulation set forth. Therefore, it is worth considering abolishing The Law on Punishment of Smuggling.