法學期刊
論著名稱: 論行政罰之禁止錯誤-以行政罰法第 8 條之評析為中心條 (The Prohibition Mistake of the Administrative Penalty-Emphasizing on the Article 8 of the Administrative Penalty Act)
編著譯者: 洪家殷
出版日期: 2009.04
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 20 卷 第 4 期 /1-51 頁
頁  數: 51 點閱次數: 1930
下載點數: 204 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 東吳大學 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 行政罰錯誤行政罰法第 8 條禁止錯誤違法性錯誤構成要件錯誤不法意識
中文摘要: 行為人因違反行政法上之義務而應受到行政罰之制裁,惟其主觀上之認識,與客觀上違反行政法上義務之事實,發生不一致之情形時,即構成行政罰上之錯誤。行政罰上之錯誤問題雖然一直存在,惟於行政罰法施行以前並未受到重視,我國不論在學理或實務皆有不足。於行政罰法公布施行後,該法第 8 條雖已有明文之規定,只是該條文之內容十分簡略,且係參考修正前刑法第 16 條之條文,以致在適用時常引發疑義。
有關錯誤理論之內涵及演變,刑法界已累積有相當多之文獻及實務經驗,我國刑法第 16 條並配合現今之學說演進而有所修正,實足供我國適用行政罰法時之參考。另德國違反秩序罰法第 11 條亦有相關之條文,其除了受該國刑法之影響外,並配合行政罰之特性而有不同之規定,此對我國應亦具有相當之啟發性。
因此,實有必要對上述兩種法例先獲得基本之認識。再者,法院實務對此課題之態度如何,亦值得關切。尤其是行政罰法施行後之案件,應有蒐集並予分析之價值。由於行政罰錯誤理論牽涉甚廣,為求完善,不得不從應受行政罰行為之構成要件著手,再配合錯誤理論之演進,以建構較為完整之理論體系。同時,再參採刑法與德國違反秩序罰法之相關規定,以及我國行政罰之特色,檢討行政罰第 8 條之規定。最後,本文將就檢討所得,針對該條文提出具體之修法建議,期能有助我國在此領域之發展。

英文關鍵詞: Mistake of the Administrative PenaltyThe Article 8 of the AdministrativePenalty ActThe Prohibition Mistake, the mistake of breaking lawsthe mistakes of essential factorsillegal consciousness
英文摘要: People who violate the obligations on the administrative acts should be punished, otherwise his subjective understanding of his behaviors is inconsistent with the objective fact violating of the obligation on the administrative acts, namely forms the “Mistake on the Administrative Penalty”. While the “Mistake on the Administrative Penalty” has been existing all the time, it has not be took notice until the implement of the Administrative Penalty Act. In our country, it obviously has not been developed in both theories and practical fields. On the other hand, though the act implementing, the content of the article 8 is very succinct and actually based of article 16 of The Criminal Act before revising, so that is often causing the doubtful points suitably.
The Criminal Act field has already accumulated quite a lot of documents and practical experiences of the intension and development of the “Mistake Theory”. The article 16 of The Criminal Act also revised with the developing theories. On the other hand, the article 11 of the Germany “Violating Order Act” is similar with our clause. Excepting of receiving the influence of their criminal laws, it also cooperates with the characteristics of the administrative penalties. It would also have suitable
Therefore, it is necessary to obtain the basic understanding of the two kinds of systems mentioned above. Moreover, it shall deeply to be concerned about the attitude s of juridical practices, especially on cases which occurs after the implement of the Administrative Penalty Act. Because of wideness of the administrative penalty and “Mistake theories”, this thesis sets from the compositions of the behavior of the administrative penalty and cooperates with the gradual progress of the theories. Meanwhile, this thesis also adopts the criminal laws and relevant clauses of the Germany “Violating Order Act”, to consider of the Article 8 of our Administrative Penalty Act. Finally, this thesis offers the suggestion of revising, forwards to be helpful to the development in this field.

目  次: 壹、前言
貳、刑法錯誤理論概述
一、事實錯誤及法律錯誤
二、構成要件錯誤及禁止錯誤
(一)構成要件錯誤
(二)禁止錯誤
(三)禁止錯誤理論之發展
(四)「可避免」(vermeidbare)及「不可避免」(unvermeidbare)之禁止錯誤
三、我國新修正刑法第 16 條之規定
參、德國違反秩序罰法相關之規定
一、理論基礎
二、構成要件錯誤
三、禁止錯誤
(一)禁止錯誤之概念及內涵
(二)禁止錯誤之處罰標準—可避免性
(四)查詢義務
(五)容許錯誤及容許構成要件錯誤
肆、我國行政罰法第 8 條規定之探討
一、立法背景及沿革
二、國內學者之見解
三、行政罰法第 8 條規定之檢討
伍、我國法院裁判之檢討
一、概說
二、構成要件錯誤
三、禁止錯誤
(一)知悉義務
(二)查詢義務
(三)與故意過失之關係
(四)機關之裁量權
(五)故意理論與罪責理論
(六)與行政罰法第 11 條之關係
四、其他
(一)行政罰法第 8 條「不知法規」之內涵
(二)行政罰法第 8 條規定「法規」之範圍
(三)行政罰法及稅捐稽徵法之適用
陸、我國行政罰錯誤理論之建構
一、應受行政罰行為之構成及理論體系
二、構成要件錯誤
三、禁止錯誤
(一)概念內涵
(二)故意理論與罪責理論
(三)直接禁止錯誤
(四)間接禁止錯誤
四、「可避免」之行為
(一)行為人主觀之認知
(二)查詢義務
五、「可避免」之標準
六、與便宜原則關係
七、修法建議
柒、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
    返回功能列