| 摘要: | 行政秩序維持為人民託付國家任務之一，行政機關基於本身維護特定秩序之必要，遂訂立不同行政規範，要求人民為特定作為或不作為，或是禁止人民特定作為或不作為，如果人民不與遵守行政機關所建構之秩序規範，即會遭與制裁。然在制裁之間，亦須謹守憲法維護之價值，同時亦不可干涉人民基本權利行駛。國家基於人民之委託，授權行政機關作出規範作為之際，亦需如此。
一行為不二罰即是基與此概念下，具體防禦人民基本權利之法理原則，一行為不二罰其本質含意，即是禁止國家對人民同一違反法規範行為，重複評價、重複處罰。
本文將從兩岸法理定位、行為區別理論、處罰選擇態樣與背後法理基礎依次探討，遂於第二章就德國、美國、台灣、中國四個地區，法理定位作一個介紹。第三章將與探討我國有關於行為區別理論與處罰選擇上之關係。第四章將與探討中國有關於行為區別理論與處罰選擇上之關係。第五章將兩岸有關一行為不二罰在地發展所產生異同與以比較，並作出結論。
The maintenance of administrative order is the one of governmental duties for the people. In order to keep the certain specific order, the administration enacts the different administrative regulations to demand for or against the people’s specific act or omission, and then the disobedience will be punished without threatening the constitutional value and basic human rights. The administration also enacts the regulations without threatening the constitutional value and basic human rights for the people. Base on the conception above, No Double Jeopardy Clause, which is protection of double punishments, was legislated.
This dissertation will discuss in several aspects, the definitions of legal theory between the R.O.C. and P.R.C., the theory of behavioral difference, the forms of selective punishments and the basis of the legal principle. In the second chapter, the definitions of legal theory of the US, R.O.C., Germany and P.R.C. will be introduced. In addition, the relations between the theories of behavioral difference and the selection of punishment in R.O.C and P.R.C will be discussed separately in the third chapter and fourth chapter. Finally, the different development of No Double Jeopardy Clause between R.O.C and P.R.C. will be compared and then come to conclusion. |
