析論違反行政法義務行為之不法意識內涵 —從行政罰法第8條禁止錯誤出發—

文化大學機構典藏 CCUR > 法學院 > 法律學系暨法律學研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/52991

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/52991

题名:	析論違反行政法義務行為之不法意識內涵 —從行政罰法第8條禁止錯誤出發— Analysis on the Illegality Cognition in Administrative Illegal Behavior —From Administrative Penalty Act, Article 8, Prohibition Mistake—
作者:	陳君屏
贡献者:	法律學系
关键词:	行政罰法第7條行政罰法第8條不法意識禁止錯誤
日期:	2023
上传时间:	2023-10-17 14:01:20 (UTC+8)
摘要:	「不法意識」乃刑事法判斷犯罪是否成立關鍵因素之一，因涉及犯罪是否成立，因此就不法意識之意義、定位與其法律效果—禁止錯誤—，在刑事法學理與實務上具諸多歧異見解；然行政罰同為國家制裁手段，行政罰法第8條即規定：「不得因不知法規而免除行政處罰責任。但按其情節，得減輕或免除其處罰。」與刑法第16條規定類似，理解上應與刑事法相同，行政罰應有不法意識的存在，否則無從操作禁止錯誤。至於行政罰上對於行為人違反行政法上義務行為時的主觀心態評價，有別於刑法第12條規定，並不採取處罰故意為原則，而是於行政罰法第7條第1項規定：「違反行政法上義務之行為非出於故意或過失者，不予處罰。」，採取故意過失等價處罰的立法例；司法院大法官解釋第275號解釋理由書中，雖採取「推定過失」主義，惟該號解釋充其量實踐「有責任始有處罰」此項法治國原則要求，但卻無助於釐清或解決應如何評價行為人違反行政法義務時之主觀心態問題。不論是行政罰對於主觀心態的評價問題，抑或是行政罰上的不法意識內涵與定位，甚至是行政罰上禁止錯誤的操作，學理與實務上皆有所爭議，不可不辨；況行政制裁作為國家公權力的展現，乃對於人民基本權利進行侵害，系爭問題不單具研究價值，並值得無人予以重視。 “Illegality Cognition” is one of the key factors in criminal law to determine whether a crime has been established or not. Therefore, there are a lot of divergent views on the meaning, positioning and legal effect of Illegality Cognition, Prohibition Mistake, in criminal law theories and practices. Administrative penalties, however, are also a means of sanctioning by the state. Administrative Penalty Act Article 8: “No person may be excused from responsibility for administrative penalty by reason of his ignorance of the law; but the penalty may be reduced or remitted as the situation may justify.” This regulation is similar to Article 16 of the Criminal Law, so should be understood in the same way as the Criminal Law. Administrative penalties should have Illegality Cognition, otherwise there is no way to operate Prohibition Mistake. As for the subjective evaluation of the subjective state of mind of the perpetrator when he/she violates his/her obligations under the administrative law, unlike Article 12 of the Criminal Law, it does not adopt the principle of punishing the intentionality of the perpetrator, but rather, it is stipulated in the Article 7 (1) of the Administrative Penalty Law that “ An act in breach of duty under administrative law is not punishable unless committed intentionally or negligently.” , and it adopts the equivalent of intentionality and negligence in the punishment of the perpetrator. Although the Judicial Yuan Constitutional Court's Interpretation No. 275 adopts the definition of “Prima Facie Negligence”, the Interpretation, at best, fulfills the requirement of the rule of law principle of “responsibility comes with punishment”, but it does not help to clarify or solve the issue of how to evaluate the subjective state of mind of the perpetrator in violating the obligations under the administrative law. Whether it is the evaluation of the subjective state of mind of the administrative penalty, or the connotation and positioning of the Illegality Cognition on the administrative penalty, or even the Prohibition Mistake of operation on the administrative penalty, there are controversies in both theories and practices, which must be identified. Moreover, as the display of the state's public power, the administrative sanction is the infringement of the people's basic rights, and the controversial issue is not only of value for the study, but also worthy of no one to pay attention to it.
显示于类别:	[法律學系暨法律學研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	85	检视/开启

检视Licence

在CCUR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

数据加载中.....