:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:論行政罰法上沒入之性質
書刊名:東吳法律學報
作者:洪家殷 引用關係
作者(外文):Hung, Chia-yin
出版日期:2018
卷期:29:3
頁次:頁1-27
主題關鍵詞:行政罰之沒入刑罰之沒收沒入之性質行政罰法第1條沒入之概念ConfiscationForfeitureNature of confiscationArticle 1 of the Administrative Penalty ActConcept of confiscation
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(2) 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:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:69
  • 點閱點閱:6
我國行政罰法第1條將沒入與罰鍰及其他種類之行政罰併列,將其定性為處罰之一種,可見其重要性。在相關之規定中,並只專就具制裁性質之沒入予以規範,至於不具制裁性質者,則有意委由個別法規中自行規定。惟行政罰法中既將沒入規定為處罰之一種,且不採從罰之態度,則沒入是否僅具制裁性質而無其他性質之可能,有必要予以釐清,尤其在立法政策上,是否考量應有較為完整之規範設計。此外,新修正刑法針對沒收部分,做了大幅度之修正,此與沒入之性質有密切之關係。其修正之內容,應可供如何處理行政罰法沒入規定時之參考。又影響我國行政罰法立法甚深之德國違反秩序罰法,其在沒入部分亦有相當完整之規定,當然有借鏡之價值。其次,將回到我國之法制,探討行政罰法上沒入之相關規定,主要是第1條及第21條至第23條規定,以究明其性質以及相關規定之內容。再者,國內已有學者針對刑法修正後,行政罰法是否應配合而有所修正,提出深入之見解,對此將予以檢討並提供個人淺見,以供參酌。
In Article 1 of the Administrative Penalty Act in Taiwan, confiscation is in juxtaposition with other types of administrative penalties, and is defined as one type of penalties, which shows its important status in the Administrative Penalty Act. In the relevant provisions, only the confiscation of sanction-nature was regulated. The confiscation of non-sanction-nature, in opposition, was entrusted individual laws and regulations in its own discretion. However, confiscation was defined as a type of penalties in the Administrative Penalty Act, and was treated as one of the major penalties. It is necessary to clarify whether the confiscation is of sanction-nature only, as well as whether there shall be a complete regulation design, especially in the aspect of legislative policy. In addition, the newly revised Criminal Law made a drastic amendment to the forfeiture, which is closely related to the nature of the confiscation. The content of the amendment should provide reference for how to deal with the regulation of confiscation in the Administrative Penalty Act. Furthermore, the Germany "Violating Order Act", which affected deeply the legislation of the Administrative Penalty Act in Taiwan, has complete rules of confiscation and could be a reference for this issue. Moreover, I will return to the legal system of Taiwan to explore the relevant provisions of confiscation in the Administrative Penalty Act, mainly Article 1 and Article 21 to Article 23, in order to clarify its nature and the content of relevant provisions. Finally, some domestic scholars have proposed some deep-rooted opinions on whether the Administrative Penalty Act should be amended after the amendment of Criminal Law, which will be reviewed in this article, and some personal opinions would be provided for reference.
期刊論文
1.陳英鈐(20141000)。追繳不法利得不生一罪二罰問題--一〇三年衛部法字第一〇三〇一一七五二〇號訴願決定評析。月旦裁判時報,29,5-15。  延伸查詢new window
2.薛智仁(20150300)。非法經營銀行業務罪之犯罪所得--兼論犯罪所得沒收之分析架構。月旦法學教室,149,60-69。  延伸查詢new window
3.薛智仁(20071000)。沒收之定位與從屬性--最高法院相關裁判綜合評釋。臺灣本土法學雜誌,99,31-45。  延伸查詢new window
4.林鈺雄(20150500)。沒收之程序問題--德國法之鳥瞰與借鏡。月旦法學教室,151,58-71。  延伸查詢new window
5.洪家殷(20040800)。行政院版「行政罰法草案」有關處罰種類之探討。月旦法學,111,21-33。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.林鈺雄(20160400)。綜覽沒收新舊法。月旦法學教室,162,52-70。  延伸查詢new window
7.林鈺雄(20160500)。綜覽沒收新舊法。月旦法學教室,163,53-63。  延伸查詢new window
8.柯耀程(20160600)。沒收法制修正之評釋。軍法專刊,62(3),1-22。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.林明昕(20160900)。論不法利得之剝奪:以行政罰法為中心。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,45(3),755-825。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.王皇玉(20161100)。2015年刑事法發展回顧:刑法沒收制度之變革。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,45(特刊),1615-1648。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.Eser, Albin(1972)。Zum Eingentumsbegriff im Einziehungsrecht。JuristenZeitung,27(5/6),146-149。  new window
12.Meyer, Karlheinz。Beschluß des BGH v. 28.9.1971, Anmerkung。JR,383-386。  new window
13.林鈺雄(20141201)。法人犯罪及不法利得之沒收--評大統混油案刑事判決。臺灣法學雜誌,261,94-111。  延伸查詢new window
14.陳重言(20150201)。簡評大統混油案之非常上訴--啟動沒收制裁的觀念改造工程。臺灣法學雜誌,265,11-15。  延伸查詢new window
15.李建良(20100600)。行政罰法中「裁罰性之不利處分」的概念意涵及法適用上之若干基本問題--「制裁性不利處分」概念之提出。月旦法學,181,133-163。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.柯耀程(20110600)。沒收、追徵、追繳與抵償法理詮釋系列(1)--沒收與追徵之法律效果定性。軍法專刊,57(3),143-163。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.吳天雲(20120800)。沒收犯罪所得的法律性質與具體適用--以是否扣除成本為例。法學新論,37,113-141。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.林鈺雄(20150300)。利得沒收之法律性質與審查體系--兼論立法之展望。月旦法學,238,53-84。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.陳重言(20150300)。第三人利得沒收之立法必要及其基礎輪廓--源自德國法規範與實務之啓發。月旦法學,238,85-101。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.詹鎮榮(2016)。行政罰定義與種類之立法政策上檢討--以裁罰性不利處分與沒入為中心。行政罰法施行十周年檢討研討會,法務部主辦 。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.法務部(2009)。行政罰法解釋及諮詢小組會議紀錄彙編。法務部。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳清秀(2014)。行政罰法。新學林。  延伸查詢new window
3.Eser, Albin(1969)。Die Strafrechtlichen Sanktionen gegen das Eigentum。  new window
4.林山田(2005)。刑法通論。臺北:元照。  延伸查詢new window
5.林鈺雄(2009)。新刑法總則。臺北:元照。  延伸查詢new window
6.柯耀程(2014)。刑法總則。臺北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
7.李惠宗(2007)。行政罰之理論與案例。元照。  延伸查詢new window
8.Gohler, Erich(2012)。Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz。  new window
9.Rebmann、Roth、Hermann(2004)。Gesetz uber Ordnungswidrigkeiten。  new window
10.Mitsch, Wolfgang(2014)。Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz, Karlsruher Kommertar。  new window
11.林錫堯(2012)。行政罰法。元照出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
12.黃榮堅(2012)。基礎刑法學。元照出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
13.蔡震榮、鄭善印(2008)。行政罰法逐條釋義。新學林。  延伸查詢new window
14.廖義男、李震山、吳志光(2007)。行政罰法。元照。  延伸查詢new window
15.洪家殷(2006)。行政罰法論。五南。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.吳俊毅(2014)。因違法行為所得沒收(Verfall)之法律性質--以德國刑法第73條及第73條a-e作出發。妨害司法、亮票、假結婚與刑法。  延伸查詢new window
2.詹鎮榮(2015)。裁罰性與非裁罰性不利處分之區分必要與標準。行政法總論之變遷與續造。元照。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE