| 摘要: | 行政罰法第 26 條第 1 項本文規定:「一行為同時觸犯刑事法律及違反行政 法上義務規定者，依刑事法律處罰之。」即實務與學說上所稱一行為不二罰原則。 一行為不二罰原則，大致上係指國家公權力不得對行為人之一行為重複評價與處 罰。一行為不二罰原則之適用前提在於，同時觸犯刑事法律及違反行政法上義務 規定，必係出自行為人之一行為，始有適用，因此，一行為之判斷對於一行為不 二罰原則之適用範圍，具有關鍵性的作用。
行政罰法第 26 條第 1 項但書規定:「但其行為應處以其他種類行政罰或得 沒入之物而未經法院宣告沒收者，亦得裁處之。」此處所稱「其他種類行政罰」 及「沒入」即指行政罰法第 2 條與第 21 條至第 23 條之規定，有主張具有處罰性 質者，相反亦有主張行政管制行為者，此爭議關乎行政罰法第 26 條之體系解釋， 因此，有深入探究之必要。
行政罰法第 26 條第 2 項規定:「前項行為如經不起訴處分、緩起訴處分確 定或為無罪、免訴、不受理、不付審理、不付保護處分、免刑、緩刑之裁判確定 者，得依違反行政法上義務規定裁處之。」即立法者認為，上稱不起訴處分、緩 起訴處分、無罪、免訴、不受理、不付審理、不付保護處分、免刑、緩刑等裁判 確定者，由於皆不具有處罰之性質，因此，行政機關再為行政裁處，亦不違反一 行為不二罰原則。本文認為，應有重新檢討之必要，故以上開所建構之一行為不 二罰原則，重新檢視行政罰法第 26 條第 2 項規定，若干決定與措施是否具有處 罰之性質，若不具有處罰之性質者，縱使行政機關再為行政裁處，亦與一行為不 二罰原則尚無抵觸;反之，若該措施或決定具有處罰之性質者，倘行政機關復為 行政裁處，實有違反一行為不二罰原則。
行政罰法第 26 條第 2 項當中，是否違反一行為不二罰原則，最具爭議者是 緩起訴處分附負擔。對此，司法院大法官亦作成釋字第 751 號解釋，以表達其立 場與見解，同時，亦有大法官不同意見書九篇，深具參考價值。本文認為，一行為不二罰原則之遵守，有助於保障人民基本權利，避免遭到 國家公權力之過度干預，因此，具有高度研究價值，並且值得吾人予以重視。
Article 26 paragraph 1 of the Administrative Penalty Law :「If an act violates criminal law and violates the provisions of administrative law, it shall be punished according to criminal law.」That is to say ,the principle of Double Jeopardy in practive and academic community. The principle of Double Jeopardy is generally to the state that public power may not repeatedly evaluate and punish in one actor for one act.The premise of the principle of Double Jeopardy is that at the same time, violation of criminal law and violation of the provisions of the administrative law, it must be made in one act from one actor. Therefore , how to judgement the behavior , is the key point to the application of Double Jeopardy.
Article 26 paragraph 1 proviso of the Administrative Penalty Law :「But it shall be punishable by other types of administrative penalties or confiscations without the court's declaration of confiscation.」The term of other types of administrative penalties and forfeit as used means the provisions of Articles 2 and 21 to 23 of the Administrative Penalty Law. Those who claim to have the nature of punishment, on the contrary, those who advocate administrative control, The controversy concerns the interpretation of the system of Article 26 of the Administrative Penalty Law. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct in-depth inquiry.
Article 26, paragraph 2,of the Administrative Penalty Law :「If the act of the preceding paragraph is determined by non-prosecution, prosecution, or is not guilty, exempt, disapproval, no trial, no payment of protection, exemption from punishment, probation, It may be stipulated in violation of the obligations of the administrative law.」 That is to say, the legislator believes that those who say that non-prosecution, prosecution, or is not guilty, exempt, disapproval, no trial, no payment of protection, exemption from punishment, probation etc , are not penalized. Therefore, the administrative authority sanction once again will no violate the principle of Double Jeopardy. This paper believes that should be a need for a re-examination. Therefore base on the principle of Double Jeopardy re-examination the Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Administrative Penalty Law whether the decisions and measures are punishments or not. If the decisions and measures are not punishments , that administrative authority can sanction once again , it won't violate the principle of Double Jeopardy. The contrary , if the decisions and measures are punishments , that administrative authority can't sanction once again , if administrative authority sanction once again , it will violate the principle of Double Jeopardy.
In Article 26, paragraph 2 ,of the Administrative Penalty Law , whether or not to violate the principle of Double Jeopardy , the most controlversial one is non- prosecution with the burden. In this regard , the Chief Justice of the Court also made an interpretation of Interpretation No. 751 to express his position and opinions. At the same time, there are also nine different opinions of the Chief Justice, which are of great reference value.
This paper believes that the observance of the principle of Double Jeopardy will help to protect the basic rights of the people and avoid excessive interference by the state's public power. Therefore, it has a high research value and deserves our attention. |
