文化大學機構典藏 CCUR:Item 987654321/45369
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 47126/50992 (92%)
Visitors : 13841832      Online Users : 210
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/45369


    Title: 證券交易法第171條第1項證券犯罪量刑之實證研究與立法研析
    The Empirical Research of the Sentencing Policy of the Securities Exchange Act of Paragraph 1 of Article 171
    Authors: 邱筱雯(SChiu, iao-Wun)
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 證券犯罪
    量刑準則
    量刑因子
    量刑政策
    量刑程序
    實證研究
    刑罰論
    證券交易法
    Securities Crimes
    Sentencing Guidelines
    Sentencing Factors
    Sentencing Policy
    Sentencing Procedure
    Empirical Research
    Punishment Theory
    Securities Exchange Act
    Date: 2019-06-01
    Issue Date: 2019-12-06 09:57:33 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文透過比較法分析,簡介美國法上有關量刑準則之運作與量刑程序之進行,希望借鏡美國實務之經驗,針對我國證券犯罪量刑實體法與程序法提出立法建議,並以質性訪談研究方法,訪談實務界法官與律師對於本研究所提立法建議之看法。在實體法上,本文提出「量刑建議表」模式,將量刑因子與以抽象化,搭配程序法之修正,將認定有罪與否之審判程序與量刑程序分離,並要求被告與其辯護人、檢察官針對量刑建議表於該個案中應具體適用之量型因子以書狀表示意見、提出證據並進行辯論,以供法院裁量並進行量刑判決。法官於判決書內應詳述量刑理由,以供兩造上訴時得以具體爭執。本文就我國現行實務運作現況為呈現,並提出立法建議,期為我國學術與實務界之參考。
    Through examining the sentencing guideline and sentencing procedure in the United States legal system, this article, based on comparative law research, aims to provide legislative suggestion to Taiwan's substantive and procedure of the Securities Exchange Act Sentencing Policy under Paragraph 1 of Article 171 by learning from the United States' experience. To deeply understand the legal system and litigation situation in Taiwan, this study adopted the interview research method and provided the judges and the litigation attorneys' perspectives. In substantive law, this article designs a sentencing table to analyze the sentencing factors. Regarding procedural law, this article suggests to separate the adjudication and sentencing procedure and require judges to state the rationales of their decisions. Therefore, the defendants and prosecutors can argue the legality of the sentencing decision in the appeal. This study hopes to establish a systematic structure for the sentencing policy and contributes to improving Taiwan's legal system.
    Relation: 華岡法粹 ; 66期 (2019 / 06 / 01) , P223 - 277
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] academic journal

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML291View/Open


    All items in CCUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback