緩起訴處分理論與處分金運用及認知之研究－以公益團體及檢察機關為例

The application and cognition on Defer-Prosecution process— A Study in Public Welfare Organizations and the Prosecutors

郭人瑋(Jen-Wei Kuo)

指導教授 ： 黃富源

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/犯罪學研究所/碩士(2009年)

摘要

本研究為了解檢察官與公益團體對於緩起訴處分制度之認知及對緩起訴處分金申請流程及運用認知之差異，以問卷調查之研究方法，分別對臺灣地區各地方法院檢察署所屬檢察官全數，及曾經通過各地檢署緩起訴支付對象審查小組審查，而成為緩起訴處分金支付對象，可查得聯絡方式之250個公益團為範圍，採取普查方式，全部寄發問卷。
問卷內容分為緩起訴理論認知、緩起訴制度層面、緩起訴處分金申請流程及緩起訴處分金之運用等四大面向，希冀經由實務工作者對問卷之填答，探知二者對緩起訴處分金整體制度認知的差距，並提出改進之建議。研究發現如下：
1. 因檢察官並未普遍參與緩起訴處分金之申請審核，故在緩起訴處分金申請流程之認知方面，公益團體優於檢察官。
2. 身為實際運用緩起訴處分金之公益團體，在緩起訴處分金運用之認知程度高於檢察官；檢察官則在刑事政策運用及監督方式的認知程度上優於公益團體。
3. 地檢署以嚴格審查支付對象之適格性來控管緩起訴處分金之指定對象及發放金額，亦獲得公益團體之認同。
4. 檢察官與公益團體雖均認同緩起訴處分金之發放有集中或偏向特定團體之現象，但均不認為違反公平正義原則。
5. 檢察官與公益團體均不贊同開放個人成為緩起訴處分金之支付對象。
6. 檢察官與公益團體均認為即使緩起訴處分金已成為公益團體固定的財源之一，但並不至於弱化其本身之募款能力。
本研究謹就實證結果，對檢察機關及公益團體提出建言，並供主管機關對於建立符合法律規範，並兼顧公平、公益之緩起訴處分金支用制度之參考。

關鍵字

緩起訴制度 ； 緩起訴處分金

並列摘要

The study is to realize the perception of prosecutors and public welfare groups toward the defer-prosecution process and their different perspectives of application process and performance of its action fine by questionnaire that the subjects include all prosecutors in every district prosecutors office and 250 public welfare groups with available contact that have passed the examination of above investigation groups of suit delay fine at prosecutors office, as the survey was conducted by post.
The questionnaire content was devided into four aspects: perception of defer-prosecution process theory, application process and performance of its disciplinary action fine, in hopes of exploring the different views toward the whole system between the two parties on the basis of the responses from practical workers, and making suggestions for improvement. Our findings of the study show as follows:
1. As prosecutors generally do not get involved in the application and/or examination of the disciplinary action fine of defer-prosecution process, public welfare groups have more understanding toward this aspect than prosecutors.
2. Being public welfare groups to practically use the action fine of defer-prosecution process, they have more understanding toward this aspect than prosecutors; however, prosecutors have more understanding toward the performance of criminal policy and way of supervision than public welfare groups.
3. District prosecutors offices strictly examine the suitability of target payees in order to control the appointed target as well as the amount, and it was approved by the public welfare groups too.

4. Although both two parties assumed that the delivery of action fine had the fact of centralization and/or preference to some specific groups, they did not think it violated the principle of fairness.
5. Both two parties did not agree to make it open to individuals as payees.
6. Both two parties believe even though the action fine had become part of steady financial resources of public welfare groups, it would not weaken NGO’s ability of raising money.
The study is only to make suggestions to procuratorial organ and public welfare groups, and providing the superior organs references of establishing relevant laws and regulations of the defer-prosecution process of action fine with fairness and public welfare, based on the outcome of the investigation.

並列關鍵字

defer-prosecution process ； disciplinary action fine

參考文獻

朱石炎，1991，＜檢察官裁量不起訴之研究＞。《法令月刊》，42（5）。

陳祖輝，2003，＜談應報式正義的轉向－復歸式正義的復出與實踐＞。《法令月刊》，54(2)。

朱石炎，1990，＜評述修正刑事訴訟簡易程序＞。《法令月刊》，41（9）。

陳運財，2002a，＜緩起訴制度之研究＞。《台灣本土法學雜誌》，35。

Norval Morris and Michael Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation. Oxford University Press,Inc.