透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.205.116.187
  • 學位論文

對當前行政不法「行為數」判斷標準之檢討

Discussion on the Current Judgment Standard of the Number of Acts of Administrative Illegality

指導教授 : 陳志龍
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


任何人不因一次行為受二次以上同種類之處罰,乃法治國家之基本原則,我國「行政罰法」第24條、第26條規定,也已經確立了「一行為不二罰原則」。然而,「一行為」究竟應該如何認定,學說及司法實務上目前仍然眾說紛紜,並無定論。影響所及,處罰機關可能因此咨意判斷,將原本應屬「單一行為」解釋認定為「數行為」,進而重複裁罰,如此即有違「平等原則」及「一行為不二罰原則」,致使人民權益遭受不當侵害。 本文檢視分析當前學說及司法實務上各種有關行政不法行為數之判斷方法後,認為「行為數」之判斷,應建立於客觀標準上,不可任由主管機關藉行政目的之達成為由,作主觀認定;且過度強調管制目的或行政目的,在法令規範多如牛毛之現代社會,人民勢將動輒得咎,行政制裁淪為「為處罰而處罰」,與法治國之本旨不合;再者,依據「量的差別說」,行政罰與刑事罰於本質上並無不同,則對於本質相同之不法行為,其行為數之認定,亦不宜因處罰手段之不同而有不同之判斷標準,因此行政不法行為之「行為數」判斷標準,參照刑法上對於行為類型之認定方式,應較能符合法規範體系解釋之要求。最後,對於相關之繼續行為、狀態行為、接續行為及引發廣泛討論之違規停車等爭議問題,提出檢討並說明本文之意見。

並列摘要


It's the general principle of a country under the rule of law that no one shall be punished twice for one and the same cause, and the principle of "No Double Sanctions Jeopardy Clause" has also been clearly established under Article 24 and 26 of Administrative Punishment Law of our country. However, since the theory and judicial practice have a wide diversity of opinions about the concept of "Single Act", what shall be a "Single Act" may be recklessly explained as "Multiple acts" by the disciplinary authorities, and then multiple punishment would be made. It would contravene the principles of "Equality" and "No Double Sanctions Jeopardy Clause" and infringe the rights of people. After inspecting and analyzing various current judging methods for determining number of acts of administrative illegality from theory and judicial practice, the thesis considers that the judgment of "number of acts" shall be founded on an objective standard instead of a subjective determination made by authorities which would like to achieve their administrative purposes. Besides, if we over-emphasize the control and administrative purposes in modern society which has countless regulations, people will be blamed for whatever they do and administrative sanctions would be made only for the purpose of punishments. It's not conform to the intent of a country under the rule of law. Furthermore, according to the theory of "Quantity Distinction", there is no essential difference between administrative and criminal illegalities, and the judgment standard for determination of number of act for such illegal act shall not be different because of the difference of punishment methods. Therefore, it may be more likely to comply with the systematic explanation of regulations that we refer to the determining method for types of acts under Criminal Law when making judgment standard of number of acts of administrative illegality. Finally, I will discuss relevant issues such as continuous act, situational acts, succeeding acts and the topics of illegal parking which have been wildly discussed, and explain the opinion of the thesis.

參考文獻


鍾瑞蘭(2007),〈行政罰法中一行為不二罰原則適用之研究〉,國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。
劉建宏(2007),〈大法官釋字第604號解釋之研究-行政罰法上「單一行為」概念之探討〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》,第64期,頁1-23。
羅天綱(2012),〈行政罰上行為數的判斷—兼評最高行政法院100年5月份第2次庭長法官聯席會議決議〉,法令月刊,第63卷第12期,頁37-62。
Erich Göhler, Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten, 14.Aufl., C.H.Beck München 2006.
Hartmut Maurer,Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 12. Aufl., C.H.Beck München 1999.

延伸閱讀