刑罰與行政秩序罰之競合問題─以大統長基食品公司案為例

The Concurrent Issues about the Criminal Penalty and the Administrative Punishment- For Example for the Datong Food Company Case

王服清(Fu-Ching Wang)

《法治與公共治理學報》 3期 (2015/12) Pp. 71-121

摘要

大統公司之代表人及受僱人因犯食品衛生管理法第49條第1項之罪，大統公司部分亦科以罰金（同法第49條第5項）。臺灣彰化地方法院102年易字第1074號（民國102年12月16日）刑事判決認為，大統公司非犯罪行為人，大統公司也無法與代表人成立共犯，故大統公司之銷售得款，並無刑法沒收規定之適用。大統判決的疑點有兩點：其一，法院計算負責人和大統公司的犯罪行為個數採用集合犯，是否違反「一罪一罰原則」，應當計為多次而以數罪併罰來加重處罰? 其二，大統判決：「法人非犯罪行為人，故無沒收規定之適用」之見解是否混淆了「立法論」與「解釋論」兩個不同層次的問題？繼而，2014年7月8日衛生福利部訴願決定書（衛部法字第1030117520號）認為，科以大統公司罰金5,000萬元在案，則就大統公司製售油品有攙偽、假冒之同一行為，以裁處書加重裁處大統公司18億5,000萬元罰緩，即有一事二罰之情形，顯與行政罰法第26條之規定意旨有違，原處分應予撤銷。如此訴願決定之見解，即產生一旦大統公司科以罰金，即無法刑法沒收且亦無法裁處罰緩之困境，其解決之道有多方爭論，也引發2014年10月立法院食品安全衛生管理法修正案之討論。本論文針對以上問題詳細逐一探究，最後也在結論部分歸結本文重點。

關鍵字

食品安全 ； 刑事罰與行政罰競合問題 ； 一事不二罰 ； 大統長基食品公司 ； 法人犯罪能力

並列摘要

Because the representative and servants in the Datong Company were found guilty of the crime due to the violation of the Food Sanitation Management Law Article 49 Paragraph 1, the Datong Company should be also imposed a criminal fine on him( with Article 49 paragraph 5). Taiwan Changhua District Court No. 102/Yi Zi 1074 ( the Republic of China on December 16 102 ) had ruled that not only the Datong Company was non-criminal, but also he could not set up an accomplice with representative, so the company 's sales could not be applied to the forfeiture provisions of the Criminal Code.There are still two questionable points in the Datong Company case. First, the court had calculated the committed number of criminal acts about the representative and the Datong Company by using the acts-collection. This issue is whether the calculation of acts-collection is a violation of the ＂one act－one penalty principle＂ or not? Should the acts-collection be counted as many times criminals and be grafted to aggravating sanction. Second, the Datong Company case decision had verdiced ＂ a legal person be non-criminal, so forfeiture provisions be not applicable＂ . The problem is whether this opinion is a confusing view two of different levels between ＂legislation theory＂ and ＂interpretation theory＂ or not? Then, because the Datong Company had been imposed a $ 50 million criminal fines on him on file, therefore the Health Ministry Administrative Appeal Decision on the July 8, 2014(Health Ministry Act Zi No. 1030117520) has believed that the above same act of the manufacturing mix and selling false about the Datong Company was imposed a 1.8 billion administrative punishment by aggravated sanction on him, so that the situation regarding the two punishments of the same act was contrary to the intention of provisions about the Article 26 of the administrative Punishment Law, the original administrative punishment should be abolished.Such the Health Ministry Administrative Appeal Decision leads to the dilemma problem: Once the Datong Company should be imposed a $ 50 million criminal fines on him, the forfeiture provisions should be not applicable to the company, and the Datong Company can not be imposed a 1.8 billion administrative punishment. The above controversyhas also led to the multi-channel solutions and the legislature discussion about the FoodSafety and HealthManagement Act Amendmentin October 2014. This thesis will explorethe aboveissues one by one and in detail, and finallythe conclusion of this article is also induce several important points.

並列關鍵字

Food Safety ； Criminal Penalties and Administrative Punishment ； Concurrent Issues ； ne bis in idem ； Datong Food Company ； Criminal Ability of a Legal Person