- 學位論文
違反行政義務行為之處罰競合關係研究
The Analysis of the Concurrent Criteria against the Violations to Administrative Duties
摘要
違反行政義務行為之處罰措施，主要有行政罰與刑罰之區別。司法院大法官認為：「違反行政法上義務之制裁究採行政罰抑或刑事罰，本屬立法機關權酌事件之特性、侵害法益之輕重程度以及所欲達到之管制效果，所為立法裁量之權限。」但並未提出具體而明確的審查標準。論文第二章首先要予以探討的，即是行政罰與刑罰的界限問題。 違反行政義務行為有時會同時構成行政罰與刑罰之競合，發生行政罰與刑罰得否併予處罰之爭議。同為行政罰之條款，依行政罰法第2條之規定，也會發生數種行政罰競合時，得否併予處罰之問題。上述問題涉及的是「一行為不二罰原則」。論文第三章即在探討一行為不二罰原則之意義，再就各種處罰手段得否併予處罰，加以分別檢討。 違反行政義務行為，係「一行為」或「數行為」涉及應裁罰之次數，甚至是「一行為不二罰」之憲法問題。論文第四章即在探討違反行政義務行為是否為「一行為」或「數行為」之判斷標準。 處罰措施競合之情形甚多，在社會秩序維護法、刑法、行政罰法、公務員懲戒法與行政執行法之間，均存在著類似處罰之法律效果。上述各種法律措施，亦會發生得否併予處罰之競合爭議。論文第五章至第八章即在釐清上述各種法律之間在「一行為不二罰原則」之下，如何適用判斷之問題。 有罪判決與緩起訴或附條件緩起訴，是否係一種處罰措施，是一個具有爭議性的問題，這主要是發生在與行政罰之競合關係上。再者，道路交通管理處罰條例亦定有「補罰差額」之規定。上述兩點均涉及到「一行為不二罰原則」之問題，則另置於論文第九章予以探討。 第十章則為結語與建議。
並列摘要
The punishments for the violation of administrative duties include two visible constituent elements, namely the administrative sanction and the criminal penalty. It has been noted that Justice of the Constitutional Court adopts the view that whether an act in violation of a duty under administrative law should be liable to administrative penalty or criminal punishment is an issue within the scope of power of legislative discretion and is subject to determination by the legislature by taking into account such factors as the nature of the event, the degree of detriment to legal rights and interests, and the effects of the control that the legislature intends to achieve ; however ,the concrete and clear examination standard of review has not been settled. Firstly ,the purpose of chapter two of this thesis is to clarify the boundary issues of administrative sanction and criminal penalty. The concurrence of administrative sanction and criminal penalty happens when administrative duty is violated. Moreover, the concurrence of the so-called administrative sanction laws happens pursuant to article 2 of the administrative sanction law. In analyzing the above issues mentioned, “no double sanction principle” on which chapter three intends, by referring to many kinds of punishments, to deliberate. The question of either single behavior or several behaviors are conducted to violate administrative duties reflects not only the number of punishments but also the constitutional declaration regarded as “no double sanction principle”. The concurrences of many kinds of punishments exist in the Social Order Maintenance Act, Criminal Code, Administrative Penalty Act, Public Functionaries Discipline Act, and the Administrative Execution Act. Moreover, the chapter five to eight of this paper argues the adoption of these laws under the principle of no double sanction. The dispute of whether the guilty of the sentence, the defer-prosecution, and the defer-prosecution with conditionality are punishment measures or not exists when administrative sanctions are applied simultaneously. The supplementary sanctions are used, moreover, in the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations. The two situations mentioned above, regarding the principle of no double sanction, are discussed in chapter nine. Finally, the conclusion and suggestions are offered in chapter ten.