查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 數罪併罰與易科罰金--以釋字第366號解釋與釋字第662號解釋為中心
- 解構數罪併罰與易科罰金之交錯難題
- 論析數罪併罰易科罰金相關之司法院解釋--以釋字第144號、第366號、第662號及第679號解釋為討論中心
- 易科罰金的適用迷思--總評大法官釋字第679號、662號、366號、144號解釋
- 「數罪併罰之易科罰金」之研究--以釋字第三六六號為中心
- 數罪併罰之易科罰金與易服社會勞動
- 數罪併罰與聲請易服社會勞動之刑事執行關係--最高法院101年度臺抗字第218號、99年度臺抗字第496號裁定之探討
- 刑罰作為秩序恢復的最後手段性之檢討--以數罪併罰之易刑處分為例
- 2005年修法廢除連續犯後之量刑評價研究研討會會議紀錄
- 刑法有關數罪併罰之最新修正--兼論易科罰金之合併處罰問題
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 數罪併罰與易科罰金--以釋字第366號解釋與釋字第662號解釋為中心=Criminal Concurrence and Fined Imprisonment is Based on Grand Justice Council Interpretation No.366 and Grand Justice Council Interpretation No.662 |
---|---|
作者 | 張明偉; | 書刊名 | 軍法專刊 |
卷期 | 56:4 2010.08[民99.08] |
頁次 | 頁154-180 |
分類號 | 587.218 |
關鍵詞 | 數罪併罰; 易科罰金; 釋字第366號解釋; 釋字第662號解釋; 刑法第41條第2項; 累罰效應; 短期自由刑; 複數微罪; 重罪; Criminal concurrence; Fined imprisonment; Grand justice council interpretation No.366; Grand justice council interpretation No.662; Paragraph 2 of article 41 of the ROC criminal code; Cumulative punishment; Short-term imprisonment; Multiple petty offenses; Felony; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 釋字第662號解釋除推翻了刑法第41條第2項規定外,並肯定釋字第366號解釋之意旨,因此究竟數罪併罰是否必然剝奪受刑人易科罰金之機會?似有待釐清。本文除從說明何以我國執行實務在數罪併罰應執行刑超過6月的情形中,不可避免地將存在如釋字第366號解釋般,部份犯罪易科罰金之現象外,為進一步回應學說上反對釋字第366號解釋之理由,本文並就我國法與德國法間關於短期自由刑之救濟,進行比較法之分析。在理解我國與德國法制間的差異後,本文將另自美國法的觀點,說明何以複數微罪併罰不必然導致重罪之評價。為求論述的周延,本文亦自憲法上人權保障之觀點,說明何以新刑法第41條第2項一概不准易科罰金之規定,有違反比例原則之疑義,並認刑法第41條第2 項本身所涉及之爭議並非單純如同立法委員所言,僅屬於立法裁量之事項。最後,本文總結相關論點,並提出本文之建議與觀點。 |
英文摘要 | While the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662 overruled Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the 2005 ROC Criminal Code, which reads against the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366, it becomes questionable whether the more than six months of combined sentence of criminal concurrence automatically and undoubtedly results in imprisonment. In response to the scholarly critics to the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366, comparative analyses between Germany and Taiwan focusing on issues of "criminal concurrence" and "avoiding short-term imprisonment" are conducted. In addition, this article also refers to an American judicial opinion concerning if multiple petty offenses become a serious one in a single criminal proceeding. Finally, since this article concludes Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the 2005 ROC Criminal Code violates the principle of proportional justice clause in the ROC Constitution, it does not belong to the legislative power to deprive the defendant of every opportunity to get imprisonment term fined in criminal concurrence no more. As a result, this study concludes the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662 is correct to vacate Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the 2005 ROC Criminal Code with some juridical analyses. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。