論行政刑罰法規的界限：重構質的區別理論與雙重門檻檢驗

Abstract

隨著現代社會邁入「風險社會」並轉型為「預防國家」，國家任務因此前置至事前的風險管制，造成行政刑法領域急遽擴張，產生「行政刑法肥大化」與「刑罰通膨」之現象。我國學界與實務通說採行之「量的區別理論」，主張行政不法與刑事不法本質相同並僅存程度差異，助長了上開現象的產生，形成了不論在立法階段到司法階段，皆以行政刑罰法規的特異性作為迴避嚴格審查二種不法界限的理由。 針對此一困境，本論文旨在對「量的區別理論」提出批判性反省，並嘗試在法益論與當罰性的討論基礎上，提出「重構質的區別理論」，改以「法益門檻」與「行為門檻」建立雙重審查架構，並據此建構出具可操作性的「四象限指引」，並分別透過具體條文及立法模式的微觀及宏觀檢視，驗證此理論的有效性。 本論文結論認為應透過重構質的區別理論與四象限指引，在立法論上要求明確之法益分析與侵害評估，在解釋論上進行合憲性之限縮解釋（如實質適性犯解釋）。本文並未否認預防與風險管制的重要性，而是嘗試提出一套可供檢驗的路徑，藉此釐清行政不法與刑事不法之界線及功能分工，使刑法回歸其作為保障法益之最後手段，在面對時代變遷的挑戰中，於風險管制需求與人權保障間取得平衡。

As modern society has entered a “risk society” and transformed into a “preventive state,” the state’s tasks have accordingly been shifted forward to ex-ante risk control. This has led to the rapid expansion of the field of administrative penal provision, resulting in the phenomena of the “hypertrophy of administrative penal provison” and “penal inflation.” The “quantitative distinction theory,” which widely adopted in Taiwanese academia and judicial practice, maintains that administrative illegality and criminal illegality are identical in essence and differ only in degree. This stance has further fueled the foregoing phenomena, resulting in a tendency—at both the legislative and judicial stages—to invoke the special characteristics of administrative penal statutes as a justification for avoiding strict scrutiny of the boundary between the two forms of illegality. In response to this dilemma, this thesis undertakes a critical reassessment of the “quantitative distinction theory” and, on the basis of discussions in legal-interest (Rechtsgut) theory and punishability (Strafwürdigkeit), proposes a “reconstructed qualitative distinction theory.” This theory establishes a dual-review framework based on “legal-interest threshold” and a “conduct threshold,” and, on this basis, develops an operational “four-quadrant guidelines.” The validity of this theory is verified through both micro-level examinations of specific legal provisions and macro-level reviews of legislative models. The thesis concludes that by adopting the Reconstructed Qualitative Difference Theory and the Four-Quadrant Guidelines, legal interest analysis and infringement assessment should be strictly required in legislative theory (de lege ferenda). Meanwhile, in interpretive theory (de lege lata), a constitutionally-oriented narrowing of interpretations (such as the interpretation of "substantive fitness crimes") should be conducted. This study does not deny the importance of prevention and risk control; rather, it attempts to propose a verifiable path to clarify the boundaries and functional divisions between administrative and criminal wrongs. This ensures that criminal law returns to its role as the ultima ratio (last resort) for protecting legal interests, striking a balance between the demands of risk control and the protection of human rights in the face of contemporary challenges.