論我國緩起訴處分與行政罰法第二十六條之 法律關係－以酒醉駕車案件為例

A Study on The Legal Relationship of Taiwan’s Deferred Prosecution and Administrative Penalty Act Article 26 : Example of Driving under The Influence

郭銀子(Yin-Tzu Kuo)

指導教授 ： 徐偉群

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201000767

摘要

國家雖為完成保護人民之任務，得採取不同的手段來處罰之，但在同時，亦不可偏廢對於人民權利的保障。所以，「一行為不二罰原則」就此而生。

目前，德國與我國均已將一行為不二罰原則落實於行政處罰中。我國行政罰法第二十六條，即是具體規範刑罰與行政秩序罰競合之一行為不二罰原則。其第一項本文及第二項規定，刑罰與罰鍰之競合，採吸收主義；至於刑罰與罰鍰、沒入以外其他種類型政秩序罰之競合，則規定於第一項但書，例外採併罰主義。

由於行政罰法之施行，行為人酒醉駕車的一行為，倘若同時違犯刑法第一八五條之三與道路交通管理處罰條例第三十五條第一項一款及第二十四條第一項第二款規定者，其僅須繳納刑罰之罰金即可，無庸再另繳罰鍰予行政機關；但當場移置保管汽車、吊扣駕駛執照與接受道路交通安全講習，此罰鍰、沒入以外其他種類行政秩序罰，行政機關仍得裁處之。

惟檢察官於斟酌刑事政策目的性後，決定對行為人為緩起訴處分，則行政機關究應如何裁罰？行政罰法第二十六條並未明文規定，致生爭議。雖然法務部曾於二○○五、二○○六年邀請國內學者專家進行討論，但本文彙整各法院自二○○八年二月五日至二○○九年二月五日止相關酒醉駕車裁定後，發現該問題仍舊存在。

因此，本文之研究目的，即在於解決「緩起訴處分與罰鍰之競合」，與「緩起訴處分與罰鍰、沒入以外其他種類行政秩序罰之競合」，期盼本文有助於立法者明瞭緩起訴處分與行政罰法第二十六條之法律關係。

關鍵字

緩起訴處分 ； 行政罰法第二十六條

並列摘要

In order to protect people, nation may adopt different ways to punish people. However, it should not neglect the protection of people's rights at the same time. As a result, " No Double Jeopardy Clause " appears.

No Double Jeopardy Clause has been applied to the administrative penalty in Germany and Taiwan at present. The Administrative Penalty Act Article 26 in Taiwan specifically provides for No Double Jeopardy Clause and the concurrence of criminal sanction and administrative sanction. The Administrative Penalty Act Article 26Ⅰand Ⅱ prescribes when the criminal sanction and fines concur only the criminal sanction is punishable by nation; as for the criminal sanction and other types of administrative penalties concur, which is prescribed by provided (the Administrative Penalty Act Article 26Ⅰ), other types of administrative penalties are still punishable by nation.

As the Administrative Penalty Act goes into effect, if one and single act constitutes simultaneously criminal offense or offenses as well as breach of duty under administrative law, it shall be punishable under the criminal law; however, that an administrative penalty may be imposed additionally if the act is punishable by any other type of administrative penalty because of the act.

If the case is ruled to deferred prosecution by the prosecution after deliberating upon the criminal policy, the administrative organizations don’t realize how to dispose. Because the Administrative Penalty Act Article 26 doesn’t provide for the concurrence of deferred prosecution and administrative sanction explicitly. It results in much controversy. Although the Ministry of Justice invited Taiwan’s experts and scholars to discuss in 2005 and 2006, the author in this paper finds it still exists after sorting many rulings of driving under the influence from Feb 5 in 2008 to Feb 5 in 2009.

Therefore, the article is to solve “the concurrence of deferred prosecution and fines” and “the concurrence of deferred prosecution and other types of administrative penalties”. It helps legislators understand the legal relationship of deferred Prosecution and Administrative Penalty Act Article 26.

並列關鍵字

deferred prosecution ； Administrative Penalty Act Article 26

參考文獻

鍾瑞蘭，行政罰法中一行為不二罰原則適用之研究，臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文（2006）。

鄭國榮，行政罰法「重複處罰禁止」之研究，臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文（2008）。

余珊蓉，行政罰法基本問題之研究，臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文（2005）。

林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法（上），自版，三版，2003。

林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法（下），自版，三版，2003。