透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.15.10.137
  • 學位論文

追訴權時效之研究

A Study on Limitation of Prosecution

指導教授 : 吳景芳
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


追訴權時效的法律效果極為強烈,時效期間完成後,將導致原應制裁的犯罪最終不受任何處罰。然而,國內卻較缺少專對此議題研究之學術論文。因此,乃希望能藉由本篇論文的撰寫,針對追訴權時效的性質、要件、法律效果與相關爭議問題,完整且詳細的逐一介紹。 追訴權時效應為消滅時效之一種,以一定期間內,不行使追訴權,導致刑罰權消滅的效果。所謂「追訴權」宜採取狹義之定義,即起訴之權利。在實體面,追訴權為刑罰權之權能,請求法院確認現實刑罰權的存在與範圍;在程序面,則為開啟刑事審判程序的權利。追訴權時效存在的理由,本文所採者有三:「痛苦代刑說」、「秩序回復說」與「證據消失說」。此三說相輔相成,互為補充。並且由此可以推導出兩個結論:首先,追訴權時效應適用於所有的犯罪類型,以排除證據消失的危險性。第二,時效期間應採取「等級制度」為宜,由於所犯罪名的輕重不同,作為刑罰代替的逃亡期間及遭破壞之秩序所需的回復期間,本應有對應於法定本刑的規定。至於時效的起算時日,當以「犯罪構成事實完成之日」為原則,「犯罪行為終了之日」為例外,各種犯罪類型的操作亦將於文中一一討論。 我國現行刑法對於時效障礙制度,僅採取「時效停止」之立法,而無「時效中斷」的規定。並且為免時效停止原因長久存在,有違追訴權時效的制度精神,尚設有時效停止原因的擬制消滅。其他相關問題,例如:審判中時效是否繼續進行的爭議、對時效停止的事實上原因之質疑、憲法第52條的適用問題等,皆為本文討論的重點。最後,時效完成後的法律效果,應採「消滅主義」,並且以「刑罰權」為消滅之客體。

並列摘要


According to the effect on a suspect in a crime, limitation of prosecution is as important as other criminal systems. However, there are few studies on this subject in Taiwan. This study would include reasons why limitation of prosecution is accepted and discussion on its requirements and effect. Limitation of prosecution is a kind of extinctive prescription. The right to prosecute is not only asking court for confirming the power to punishment in each case, but also opening a trial procedure. There are three theories of establishing the system of prosecution limitation. First, evidences usually disappear as time goes by. Second, punishment is instead of the pain due to escape. Third, the order destroyed by crime has recovered after the period of limitation. Dependence on these theories, limitation of prosecution should be applicative in all kinds of crimes, and the period of limitation should be classified based on different crimes. Otherwise, making sure the beginning of limitation period in different kinds of crimes is also this study’s assignment. In Taiwan, the period would be terminated when some legal events come into existence. There are a lot of questions and disputes about the termination of prosecution limitation. The goal of this study is trying to find the probably better answers. Finally, the power to punishment would be eliminated if the period of limitation has been completed without exercising prosecution.

參考文獻


3.吳啓賓,論追訴權時效之修正草案,法令月刊,第28卷第3期,1977年3月。
4.林國賢,刑法上時效制度之研究,法令月刊,第32卷第6期,1981年6月。
9.陳聰明,刑法之追訴權時效,法令月刊,第45卷第3期,1994年3月。
11.陳子平,論共犯之獨立性與從屬性,東吳法律學報,第19卷第3期,2008年1月。
17.鄭定一,追訴權行使中時效是否進行論,法令月刊,第13卷第7期,1962年7月。

延伸閱讀


  • 張順吉(1968)。追訴時效之研究法令月刊19(8),8-14。https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.196808_19(8).0003
  • Smooth Bay(2016)。求償時效的疑義航貿週刊(201604),59-62。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20200218001-201601-202106020017-202106020017-59-62
  • 戚本昕(2020)。代償請求權之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202003994
  • 黃書苑(2008)。The Study of Preliminary Injunction〔博士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1806200812011200
  • 賴頡(2013)。A Study on Preclusion Effect of Newly Raised Allegations/Defenses on Appeals〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-3108201322451700

國際替代計量