法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 刑法不法利得沒收制度溯及適用之憲法問題
編著譯者: 張志偉
出版日期: 2017.06
刊登出處: 台灣/法令月刊第 68 卷 第 6 期 /107-130 頁
頁  數: 21 點閱次數: 2266
下載點數: 84 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 張志偉
關 鍵 詞: 沒收罪刑法定溯及既往禁止懲罰財產權
中文摘要: 本次刑法修法雖然一改舊法時期沒收制度的陳舊之弊,實屬立意良善;然而沒收新制溯及既往適用條款卻是典型的針對性立法,其立法動機固然有其剝奪惡質廠商不法所得的質樸正義感使然,但刑事法領域中的禁止溯及既往原則正是要求立法者及法律適用機關必須自我提醒,刑罰正義的實現不得以犧牲法治國原則為代價。然而令人遺憾的是,無論從憲法意涵的罪刑法定原則、刑事法領域中禁止溯及既往原則的內涵,乃至於比較法上德國刑法及其施行法的具體規範而言,本次立法全面引進德國刑法利得沒收制度的同時,卻完全忽略或錯誤解讀禁止溯及既往的憲法要求,自與憲法上罪刑法定原則意旨有違。
英文關鍵詞: ConfiscationNo Penalty without a LawProhibition on Retroactive ApplicationPunishmentProperty Rights
英文摘要: The amendment to the Criminal law solved some existing problems in the original law. However, the new confiscation and retroactive provisions are typical legislation targeted at specifi c incident. The legislative intent is to deprive the unscrupulous companies of keeping the proceeds from illegal behaviors. Nevertheless, the prohibition on criminal retroactive laws requires the legislators and the agencies that apply the laws have to be reminded that the realization of criminal justice cannot be at the cost of compromising the principle of rule of law. Regrettably, if we review the issue from the constitutional principle of no penalty without a law, the prohibition on the retroactive applicatio and the comparative German criminal laws and its application rules, the amendments while introducing the confiscation of proceeds from the German law, totally neglect or wrongly interpret the constitutional requirements that prohibit any retroactive laws. Therefore, it is in violation of the constitutional principle of no penalty without a law.
目  次: 壹、問題提出
貳、立法理由所隱藏的憲法爭議
參、刑事法領域中的法律不溯既往原則
  一、憲法意義下的罪刑法定原則
  二、罪刑法定原則下的溯及既往禁止
  三、德國刑法中關於利得沒收之溯及既往禁止
肆、我國刑法利得沒收制度溯及既往之合憲性審查
  一、審查對象的再釐清
  二、立法迴避罪刑法定原則的部分理據與質疑
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列