交通違規舉發關係人民權益甚鉅，係行政重要作用，另同一違規 行為可能適用數個法規而產生多項處罰，此關係行政法上一行為不二 罰理論，故本文首先針對交通違規之舉發與一行為不二罰理論，予以 探討論述，並據此評析法院判決之案例，以此印證實務運作。針對交 通違規之舉發，論述包括交通舉發執法之概說、交通舉發之多階段程 序與交通違規之職權不舉發。另一行為不二罰理論方面，在此論述包 含其概念與憲法相關原則、行政罰法之規定、單一行為論、處罰的競 合。基於上述理論，評析本文超載判決之案例，本文認為道路交通管 理處罰條例有關超載之規定，該條例第29 條及第29 條之2 應整併修 正以明確整體物品之超載以及非整體物品超載等裁罰規定。又本案超 載行為可視為法律上之ㄧ行為，應適用較重之道交條例第29 條之2 第 1 及第3 項規定予以裁罰，僅因原處分所認定之超載各項事實之基礎有 誤，故法院應予撤銷。

Reporting of traffic violation has huge influences on human rights. It plays an important role in the administration as well. A violation may apply in several regulations, resulting in multiple penalties. This is related to the theory of Double Jeopardy on the administrative law. Therefore, this paper will shed light on reporting of traffic violation and the principle of Double Jeopardy. Discussions will be made on the judged cases in the court to affirm the practical operation. As for the reporting of traffic violation, issues relating to the introduction of the traffic violation enforcement, multi-stage of traffic violations and right of not reporting traffic violations will be included. Regarding the principle of Double Jeopardy, we will discuss the concepts of the principle of Double Jeopardy, the related principles with the Constitutions, the Administrative Penalty Regulation, the theory of single behavior, and concurrence of penalties. Based on the above theories, this paper comments on the judgment of overloading cases. It is argued that modifications should be made relating to the overloading regulations in Section 29 and No.2 of Section 29 of the Traffic Regulations on Administrative Penalties. Moreover, the case of overloading behavior is considered to be a behavior in the law, so it should follow some moresevere regulations, No. 1 and 3 in Action 2 of Section 29. Based on the wrong judgement of the overloading facts in the original penalty, the court shall revoke the case.