查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 解構數罪併罰與易科罰金之交錯難題
- 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
- 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 | 解構數罪併罰與易科罰金之交錯難題=Resolving Problems from Criminal Concurrence and Diversion |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 張明偉; | 書刊名 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
| 卷 期 | 82 2012.06[民101.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁95-139 |
| 分類號 | 587.2 |
| 關鍵詞 | 數罪併罰; 易科罰金; 釋字第144號解釋; 釋字第366號解釋; 釋字第662號解釋; 釋字第679號解釋; 轉向處分; 累罰效應; 短期自由刑; Criminal concurrence; The diverted fine from imprisonment; Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 144; Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366; Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662; Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 679; Diversion; Cumulative effect of punishment; Short-term imprisonment; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 雖然釋字第 662 號解釋肯定釋字第 366 號解釋之意旨,但是釋字第 679 號解釋卻延續釋字第 144 號解釋之精神,限制易科罰金之適用,因此關於數罪併罰應否限制易科罰金?似有待釐清。本文除從規範目的說明數罪併罰與易科罰金外,更將易科罰金定位為轉向處分,並以此說明釋字第 366 號解釋與第 662 號解釋。此外,為進一步釐清釋字第 679 號解釋之盲點,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,本文主張易科罰金之轉向將排除依數罪併罰定應執行刑,並指出此種說法亦有助於累犯爭議之釐清。最後,本文總結相關論點,解構釋字第 679 號解釋之爭議並提出本文之建議與觀點。 |
| 英文摘要 | While the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662 affirms the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366, the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 679 still follows the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 144, which held that diverted fine from imprisonment is inapplicable in that concurrence case. It becomes questionable whether the criminal concurrence automatically and undoubtedly results in imprisonment. In addition to indentifying the goals of criminal concurrence and diverted fine from imprisonment, this study justifies the Grand Justice Council Interpretations of No. 366 and 662 based on the point of diversion. Further comparative analyses between Germany and Taiwan focusing on issues of “criminal concurrence” and “avoiding short-term imprisonment” are conducted also. After the comparative analysis, this study asserts that diversion program would be excluded from criminal concurrence, which provides a better solution for recidivism. As a result, this study points out defects of the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 679 with some practical suggestions. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。