:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:貪污治罪條例侵占罪與刑法業務侵占罪之判決分析
書刊名:犯罪與刑事司法研究
作者:紀致光
作者(外文):Chi, Chih Kuang
出版日期:2007
卷期:9
頁次:頁55-84
主題關鍵詞:貪污侵占威嚇罪責相當原則比例原則CorruptionEmbezzlementDeterrenceThe principle of appropriateness between offense and penaltyThe principle of proportionality
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(6) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:5
  • 共同引用共同引用:190
  • 點閱點閱:56
為了防制貪瀆犯罪,政府特別訂立貪污治罪條例,將公務員觸犯侵占、竊盜、詐欺及圖利等罪之刑責大幅提高,希望藉由處罰的加重來威嚇貪瀆犯罪,但實際的效果如何,是否會產生不良的影響,則較少關注。 本文對88、89年起訴之貪污治罪條例侵占罪及刑法業務侵占罪判決分析後,發現對於貪污治罪條例之侵占罪,法院常援引各種減刑規定予以輕判,使大多數的判決皆低於該罪名之最低法定刑。而當國家及被告皆投入更多資源於貪瀆案件的訴訟時,訴訟時間會延長,實質定罪率會降低,對貪瀆犯罪之威嚇效果產生不良影響。另一方面,處罰特別加重後,會因為法院是否引用減刑規定,被告是否有足夠資力選任辯護人,以及輕微案件認定標準之缺陷等因素,使判決產生不公平的結果。 大法官會議解釋第476號及第551號解釋要求以特別立法加重刑責者,應符合「罪責相當原則」及「比例原則」,觀諸本文對判決之分析,現行貪污治罪條例有違反該兩項原則之虞。因此,在刑法公務侵占罪已足以規範該類犯罪下,廢除特別法之規定而回歸刑法,應是可考量之方向。
The Anti-corruption Statute (1963) is a special law enacted by our government to combat corruption. According to the statute, the punish of work-related embezzlement, larceny, fraud, and illegally profiting committed by the public official is substantially increased to deter corruption, but the effect is not clear. Prosecuted cases of embezzlement in the period 1999 and 2000 wee taken as sample to examine the effect. Results show that courts usually cite varied commutation regulations so that the pronounced term of imprisonment substantially lower than the minimum term stipulated in applicable laws. When the defendants and government put more funds and efforts to the lawsuits, the trial lengths are prolonged, the conviction rates are lowered. After all, the deterrence to corruption is less efficient. On the other hand, resulting from the defect of some commutation regulations and the difference of defendant's finance support, some judges are unfair. According to the interpretations No. 476 and 551 of the Council of Justice of the Constitution Court, if special criminal laws place special restrictions on people's basic rights, the content of which shall conform to 'the principle of appropriateness between offense and penalty' and 'the principle of proportionality'. The Anti-Corruption Statute doesn't seem to fit these principles very well. Because the Criminal code is enough to regulate the work-related embezzlement committed by the public official, it is better choice to abolish special regulation in the Anti-Corruption Statute and return to the Criminal Code. Keywords: graffiti, adolescent deviance, adolescent subculture
期刊論文
1.侯崇文(19971200)。治亂世用重典社會意向之研究。犯罪學期刊,3,43-57。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.蘇俊雄(19991100)。量刑權之法律拘束性--評最高法院八十六年臺上字第七六五五號判決。月旦法學,54,167-172。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.邢泰釗(20030300)。就我國實務運作觀點,評現行貪污治罪條例。月旦法學,94,8-15。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.柯耀程(20030300)。貪污治罪條例在適用上的評估與檢討--貪污治罪條例與刑法相關規定之適用與競合。月旦法學,94,46-57。new window  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.陳志祥(199306)。論罪刑相當原則(碩士論文)。文化大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.蕭斐全(1999)。貪污治罪條例單獨立法必要性之探討(碩士論文)。國防管理學院。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.柯耀程(199909)。變動中的刑法思想。柯耀程。  延伸查詢new window
2.Gibbs, J.(1975)。Crime, Punishment and Deterrence。New York:Elsevier。  new window
3.法務部(2003)。犯罪狀況及其分析。台北:法務部犯罪問題研究中心。  延伸查詢new window
4.林山田(1997)。刑事法論叢。台大法學院。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.許春金(2003)。犯罪學。桃園:中央警察大學。  延伸查詢new window
6.法務部犯罪研究中心(1995)。貪污犯罪及其防制對策之研究。法務部犯罪研究中心。  延伸查詢new window
7.許春金(20060400)。人本犯罪學 : 控制理論與修復式正義。臺北市:許春金出版。new window  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.Nagin, D. S. and G. Pogarsky(2003)。An Experimental Investigation of Deterrence: Cheating, Self-serving Bias, and Impulsivity。  new window
2.林鈺雄(2004)。刑事訴訟法。  延伸查詢new window
3.法務部(2001)。新加坡考察報告--新加坡檢察制度及肅貪實務。  延伸查詢new window
4.法務部(2005)。中華民國刑法及刑法施行法全文暨修正條文對照表。  延伸查詢new window
5.法務部調查局(2004)。九十二年廉政工作年報。  延伸查詢new window
6.法務部調查局(2005)。九十三年廉政工作年報。  延伸查詢new window
7.法務部調查局(2006)。九十四年廉政工作年報。  延伸查詢new window
8.周愫嫻(2003)。影響妨害性自主案件審理過程與判決結果之實證研究。  延伸查詢new window
9.馬克蕭(Marilyn)(2000)。犯罪學理論(Criminological Theory)。  延伸查詢new window
10.許玉秀(2005)。公務員概念的立法定義--第十六次修正刑法檢討系列(第十條第二項)。  延伸查詢new window
11.劉幸義(1991)。惡法文化。  延伸查詢new window
12.Kahan, D.M.(1997)。Between economics and sociology: The new path of deterrence Michigan Law Review。  new window
13.Kerlinger, F.N.(1964)。Foundations Behavioral Research。  new window
14.Nagin, D.S. and G. Pogarsky(2001)。Integrating celerity impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence。  new window
15.Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and G A. Whitmore(1978)。Applied Statistics。  new window
16.Opp, K.D.(1997)。Limited rationality and crime。  new window
17.Shepherd, J. M.(2002)。Fear of the first strike: The full deterrent effect of California’s two-and three-strike legislation。  new window
18.Shover, N. and J.P.Wright(2001)。Crime of privilege。  new window
19.Wang, H. M.(2001)。Judicial sentencing decisions in Taiwanese economic crimes: Consequences of swift justice。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE