一行為不二罰原則主要爭點之研究－以行政法院裁判為中心

Abstract

行政罰法第24條與第25條規範一行為及數行為之處罰效果，卻未界定行為數之判斷方法，致實務評價持續、反覆或跨法規違規時常生歧異。本論文採法釋義學與裁判類型化方法，分析釋字第503號、第604號、第754號解釋及最高行政法院裁判，並將處罰性質、行為數、義務結構、規範競合及處罰效果分層處理。 本論文認為，一行為不二罰原則旨在防止國家就同一不法內容重複非難，比例原則控制制裁手段與累積負擔，二者相互補充。行為數須以具體作為或不作為為基礎，檢驗各部分有無新決意、獨立義務、新的守法機會及可分之不法內涵；多數法條、處分、客體、查獲或期間不得直接轉化為數行為。行政介入得結算既往評價、具體化新義務或標示新事實之調查起點，但其本身或遲延不改變原始行為。行為數確定後，應先排除不真正競合；數規範仍保有獨立不法者，始依第24條處理，事實確屬數行為者，方適用第25條。累積制裁仍受比例原則與責罰相當控制；裁處與審查應具體說明事實分界、義務內容及評價範圍。

Articles 24 and 25 of the Administrative Penalty Act prescribe the legal consequences of a single act and multiple acts, respectively, but do not provide a method for determining the number of acts. This omission has produced divergent evaluations of continuing, repetitive, and cross-statutory violations. Using doctrinal analysis and case typology, this thesis examines The Principle of ne bis in idem through Judicial Yuan Interpretations Nos. 503, 604, and 754 and relevant judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court. It organizes the inquiry into the punitive character of a measure, the number of acts, the structure of administrative-law obligations, the concurrence of sanctioning provisions, and the resulting legal consequences. This thesis argues that The Principle of ne bis in idem prevents the State from repeatedly condemning the same unlawful content, while proportionality controls the means and aggregate burden of sanctions; the two principles perform distinct but complementary functions. The number of acts must be grounded in concrete conduct or omission and tested through factual connectedness and normative independence by asking whether each segment reflects a renewed decision, an independent obligation, a new opportunity to comply, and distinct unlawful content. A plurality of provisions, administrative decisions, regulated objects, inspections, or periods does not by itself establish multiple acts. Administrative intervention may close the evaluation of pre-intervention conduct, specify a new duty to cease or remedy a violation, or provide an evidentiary starting point for identifying new post-intervention facts. Neither intervention itself nor official delay alters the original character of the conduct. Once the number of acts has been determined, apparent concurrence based on specialty, subsidiarity, absorption, or prior or subsequent acts must first be excluded. Article 24 governs where several sanctioning provisions retain distinct unlawful content in genuine concurrence, whereas Article 25 applies only to multiple acts. Cumulative sanctions remain subject to the principles of proportionality and culpability. The resulting typology requires agencies and courts to identify factual boundaries, obligations, normative relationships, and each evaluation's scope, making sanctions and judicial review more transparent and verifiable.