- 學位論文
我國肇事逃逸罪之發展與探討—兼論美國法之規範
The Development and Discussion of Hit-and-Run Offense in Taiwan : With Discussion of American Criminal Law
摘要
我國刑法第185條之4肇事逃逸罪自民國88年制定以來，就本罪保護法益之定位乃至各項構成要件之解釋，學說與判決實務之爭議未曾停歇，近年有擴大本罪保護範圍之重層性權益保障見解出現，究其根本原因即在於保護法益模糊及條文規定過於簡陋，而連帶影響各項構成要件之解釋適用，同時形成過度處罰及處罰不足的不合理現象。 在經歷學界長年的批判、判決實務之重層性權益保障見解後，司法院大法官釋字第777號解釋宣告肇事逃逸罪部分違憲，而於民國110年修正後是為現行之肇事逃逸罪。然而，本罪於修法前所面臨之諸多解釋及適用困境，終未因修法而獲得解決，故參考美國法有關肇事逃逸罪之相關規定，希冀能借鏡他山之石，作為我國日後修法之參考。
並列摘要
Since the government of the Republic of China (known as Taiwan) legislated the crime of hit-and-run in article 185-4 of its criminal law in 1999, the disputes between academia and court's judgment on the positioning of the protection of legal interests and the interpretation of several constituent elements of this crime have not stopped. In recent years, there have been opinions on the multiple protection of legal interests, which has been considered expands the protection extent of this crime. The fundamental reason is that the protection of legal interests is too vague and the provision itself is very simple, so that the interpretation and application of several constituent elements are both badly affected. This has resulted in an unreasonable situation of both excessive and insufficient punishment. After years of criticism in the academia and opinions on the multiple protection of legal interests of the court’s judgment, the Interpretation No. 777 of the Judicial Yuan declared that the crime of hit-and-run was partially unconstitutional, and such provision was amended as the current crime of hit-and-run in 2021. However, many difficulties in the interpretation and application of such crime have not been solved by the revision of the law. Therefore, refer to the relevant provisions of the crime of hit-and-run in American criminal law, hoping to learn from the stones of other hills as a reference for the revision of the law in Taiwan in the future.