「連續處罰」制度常被運用於環境行政管制領域，而「連續處罰」之法律性質定位模糊不清，並衍生出諸多問題，例如有無一事不二罰原則之適用、行為數又該如何認定之爭議，法學界與司法實務界對此也各有不同見解。
The continuous punishment system is frequently applied in the field of administrative regulation of environment and its nature of the laws recognized ambiguously and many issues , such as the application of the No Double Jeopardy Principle, or to recognize the numbers of the actionthereby resulted. Opinions of legal scholars and practitioners differ in the foregoing issues. Therefore, the article intends to research whether the continuous punishment’s nature of the laws belongs to fines or default surcharges , or both. In addition, its nature of the liability belongs to the behavior liability or the state liability.
After recognizing the nature of the laws in the field of environmental law, this article is aim to clarify the sanction procedure and the execution that should be followed in the continuous punishment system by commenting on judgments. Finally, this article will intend to submit views with respect to these foregoing issues and propose suggestions on relative law making.
因此，本文以為除了探究「連續處罰」之法律性質究屬行政罰之罰鍰、或行政執行之怠金，亦或是兩者兼具外；又其在環境法規上責任性質之歸屬究為行為責任、或狀態責任，亦為本文欲探究之議題；將環境法上之連續處罰之性質定性後，本文欲透過對於判決上之評析，釐清「連續處罰」制度應遵循的裁處程序及執行問題，期能從論文研究中找到其中之癥結，並能提出對上述爭議問題法制上之建議。
