廢棄物清理法上「未經許可受託處理廢棄物罪」之行為主體釋疑－倂引介德國環境立法之模式

Doubts on Who is the Actors of ＂Conducting Waste Disposal Without Permission＂ in Waste Disposal Act --Also Reference to German Environmental Legislation Model

魏國晉(Kuo-Chin Wei)

《法令月刊》 69卷7期 (2018/07) Pp. 83-107

https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.201807_69(7).0004

摘要

我國最高法院近期判決中，多認為廢棄物清理法第46條第4款前半「未經許可受託處理廢棄物罪」之行為主體，得包含：一、以廢棄物清理為業務卻未申請許可之人，與二、無意反覆實施廢棄物清理行為，亦未申請許可之人。惟以刑法解釋角度觀之，相關結論應是透過「目的擴張解釋」取得之結果，並已牴觸了本罪「機構」與「業務」用語之文義解釋極限，而有違反「罪刑法定原則」與僭越立法權限之疑慮。惟於分析本罪立法目的，並考察德國環境立法之管制與處罰模式以後，本文認為真正應當處理者，乃是立法者就本罪採用「行政刑法」之立法模式，惟其所借用之行政規範，卻於文義上無法體現行政義務之內涵，因而促使實務見解例外採取「目的擴張解釋」。進一步言之，最高法院之解釋結果，才是符合國際趨勢有關廢棄物清理行為之適當評價。有鑑於此，本文認為兼顧刑法解釋與環境立法之適當解決方法，應是修正系爭規範之文義，使其確實體現立法真意，並符合刑法文義之嚴格標準。

關鍵字

環境刑法 ； 廢棄物清理法第46條第4款 ； 行政刑法 ； 業務身分 ； 目的解釋

並列摘要

Most of the Supreme Court's judgments are of the opinion that the Subject of Article 46, Clause 4 of Waste Disposal Act, who committed the offense of ＂Conducting Waste Disposal Without Permission＂, may include those who choose ＂Waste Disposal＂ as their business but have not applied for permission, and those who do not intend to doing ＂Waste Disposal＂ repeatedly but still have not applied for permission. However, from the perspective of criminal law interpretation, the conclusion is the result of the ＂teleological expanded interpretation＂ and has contravened the limit of the ＂Management＂ and ＂business＂ terms of this crime. Even worse, it violated the principle of ＂Nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without a law)＂ and overstepped the legislative authority. However, after analyzing the true meaning of legislation, and examining the control and punishment mode of German environmental legislation on ＂Waste Disposal＂, it is a convincing that the real problem should be deal with is from the legislative model used in this crime. In other words, legislators use the model of ＂administrative criminal law＂ for this crime. However, the administrative norms borrowed by legislators fail to demonstrate the purpose and the current situation from the very beginning, thereby forcing the legal practice to adopt the ＂teleological expanded interpretation＂ exceptional. Further, the environmental protection measures presented by the legislator's and the Supreme Court are the appropriate methods for judging the ＂Waste Disposal＂ and in line with the international trend. In view of this, this article points out the appropriate method which should take into account ＂Interpretation of Criminal Law＂ and ＂Environmental Legislation＂, and to correct the text of the present norm, so that it could reflect the true meaning of legislation, and meet the strict standards of criminal law.

並列關鍵字

Environmental Criminal Law ； Article 46 Clause 4 of Waste Disposal Act ； Administrative Criminal Law ； Identity of Business ； Teleological Interpretation

參考文獻

邱英武（1997），〈淺論附屬刑法與行 政刑法、特別刑法之關係〉，《軍 法專刊》，43 卷8 期，頁29-37。

法務部審訂（2017），《德國刑法典》。 臺北：元照。

洪家殷（2009），〈行政罰法：第一講 —行政罰之概念及種類〉，《月旦法學教室》，84 期，頁43-56。

Landmann, Robert von/Rohmer, Gustav (2017), Umweltrecht: UmweltR, 84. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck.

Schönke, Adolf/Schröder, Horst (2014), Strafgesetzbuch, 29. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck.