| 题名 |
論事後宣告沒收與憲法一事不再理原則－兼論金融八法發還賠償條款是否允許事後宣告沒收 |
| 并列篇名 |
On the Subsequent Confiscation and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem: Also a Discussion on Whether the Reparation Regulations of Financial Eight Laws Allow the Subsequent Confiscation |
| 作者 |
連孟琦(Meng-Chi Lien) |
| 关键词 |
事後宣告沒收 ； 單獨宣告沒收 ； 事後單獨宣告沒收 ； 一事不再理 ； 一行為不二罰 ； 司法院釋字第775號解釋 ； 司法院釋字第808號解釋 ； 金融八法發還賠償條款 ； Subsequent Confiscation ； Independent Confiscation ； Subsequent Independent Confiscation ； Ne Bis in Idem ； Ban on Being Punished Twice for the Same Offence ； Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 775 ； Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 808 ； Reparation Regulations of Financial Eight Laws |
| 期刊名称 |
臺北大學法學論叢 |
| 卷期/出版年月 |
125期（2023 / 03 / 01） |
| 页次 |
147 - 195 |
| 内容语文 |
繁體中文;英文 |
| 中文摘要 |
我國刑法第40條第3項單獨宣告沒收之立法理由中提及被告「曾受判決確定者」，亦得單獨宣告沒收，最高法院有判決據此認為被告「曾受有罪判決確定」之案件，似乎也可適用單獨宣告沒收。本文認為本案判決確定後之事後宣告沒收，應接受憲法一事不再理之檢驗，並對以下三種事後宣告沒收制度一併加以分析：包括我國刑法第40條第3項與德國刑法第76a條當中之事後單獨宣告沒收、德國刑法第76條之事後改宣告追徵以及德國刑事訴訟法第422、423條之沒收與本案分離後之事後宣告沒收。本文認為後兩者並未違反一事不再理，而事後單獨宣告沒收則應參考德國刑法第76a條第1項第3句進行目的性限縮，加入「僅限於前確定判決未曾對沒收做出裁判者」之要件，方能合憲。至於我國金融八法發還賠償條款是否允許事後宣告沒收，本文認為該類條款並非單獨宣告沒收之特別規定，而且也不得事後單獨宣告沒收。根本之道，還是應該刪除此類條款，並回歸刑法。若仍想讓法院可等待確認發還及賠償數額後，再事後宣告沒收，則建議引進德國刑事訴訟法第422及423條與本案分離之事後宣告沒收程序。 |
| 英文摘要 |
The legislative explanation of Art. 40 Para. 3 mentions that the court can independently order that the object be confiscated even if the judgment of the case becomes final. According to this explanation, one judgment of the supreme court considers that the court can independently order that the object be confiscated after a verdict becomes final. This article argues that the subsequent confiscation must be in conformity with the constitutional principle of ne bis in idem. It examines the constitutionality of three kinds of subsequent confiscation, including subsequent independent confiscation (Art. 40 Para. 3 of Taiwanese Criminal Code and Art. 76a of German Criminal Code), subsequent order for confiscation of equivalent sum of money (Art. 76 of German Criminal Code) and separation of confiscation proceedings and confiscation following separation (Art. 422 and 423 of German Code of Criminal Procedure). The latter two systems conform with the principle of ne bis in idem and could be used as a reference for amending our criminal law. As for the subsequent independent confiscation, in order to comply with constitutional requirements, an additional condition similar to Art. 76a para. 1 sentence 3 of the German Criminal Code has to be amended: "Confiscation is not ordered, if a decision concerning said confiscation has already been taken and become final." As for the question, whether the reparation regulations of Financial Eight Laws allow the subsequent confiscation? The answer is no. The only possible way is to introduce the German system: separation of confiscation proceedings and confiscation following separation (Art. 422 and 423 of German Code of Criminal Procedure). |
| 主题分类 |
社會科學 >
法律學 |
| 参考文献 |
|
