行政罰法「重複處罰禁止」之研究

Abstract

「重複處罰之禁止」乃避免國家公權力對於人民之同一違法行為予以多次的追訴或處罰，基於法安定性原則及信賴保護原則之憲法基礎，此一原則已建構成為近代法治國家的基本原則。然以，我國司法及行政實務上，因受傳統德國學說之影響，向來認為一行為違反數法律（數義務），因其規範之性質及目的不同，得併為處罰；而學者大多主張處罰其一如已足達行政目的者，毋庸為重複處罰；致使此一問題成為長久以來之爭議。 晚近我國司法院大法官會議解釋釋字第503號及604號解釋已著成不得重複處罰之明文，行政罰法公布施行後亦確立了「一行為不二罰」之原則，法制上看似已符合民主法治國家保障人權之潮流；然以，舊日理論與判決實務影響深遠，而新法內容又過度簡略，既有的法律規範亦有諸多與此原則齟齬之處，要對於「一行為不二罰」原則建構完整的法制體系，恐仍有一段努力的空間；本文嘗試從比較法的觀點，藉助法治先進國家（如美、德）之規範及經驗，釐清「一行為不二罰」原則應有的操作規範，應證我國以往實務及學理見解之爭議，試圖闡釋「一行為不二罰」原則在我國未來實務運作上應有的模式。 本文論述過程除先確立「重複處罰禁止」之法律定位外，要以「一行為」與「不二罰」為兩大討論主軸，先就「一行為」之概念為學理上之探討，並就各種特殊的行為態樣為分析，以判定其為一行為（一罰）或數行為（數罰）；次就一行為牽涉數種處罰發生競合時（包括數行政罰競合及行政罰與刑事罰之競合），應如何裁處？為學理分析；藉從理論觀察、實務印證，期能對於行政罰法中有關「一行為不二罰」原則之內涵賦予正確的圖像，並觀察本法或其他相關法律有無應行增益之處，提出本文見解。 「一行為不二罰」原則早期被認為屬於法律層次之原則，因其具有類似訴訟基本權之特徵，在我國及德國法制上，學者普遍認為其已發展成憲法上的原則，因此其適用領域較諸英美法制為擴張，站在人權保障的基礎上誠屬進步；本文之研究所提出之制度建構及修法建議，期能在法制發展上有些許貢獻。

The double jeopardy aims to avoid punishing more than once for the same offense. On the constitutional basis of the principles of legal stability and trust protection, the double jeopardy has become the basic principle of contemporary countries ruled by law. However, influenced by traditional German theory, in practice the judiciary and administration has always considered it necessary to punish a crime for more than once if it violates several laws (obligations). By contrast, most scholars maintain that if a punishment is sufficient to achieve its purpose, no more punishments are needed. As a result, the issue has long been contentious. Interpretation Nos. 503 and 604 by the Justices of the Judicial Yuan have expressly forbidden double jeopardy. The Administrative Punishment Act has also established the principle of double jeopardy. Though the legal system seems to be in line with the trend of human rights protection, the old theory and practice have had a profound impact. Moreover, the new legislation is very sketchy and many of the existing laws are at odds with the principle. Consequently, there is plenty of room for improvement before a sound legal system complete with the principle of double jeopardy is established. The article strives to outline the operating norms of “no double jeopardy” from the comparative law perspective by taking a leaf from industrialized nations’ books (e.g. the US, Germany) in an effort to bridge the gap between theory and practice and illustrate the operating mode of the “ double jeopardy” principle. As well as establishing the legal status of “ double jeopardy”, the article will explore the subject by first dividing it into two parts – “one behavior” and “no more than one punishment” – before carrying out a theoretical discussion of the concept of “one behavior”, analyzing the patterns of various kinds of special behaviors in order to determine whether it is one behavior (one punishment) or several behaviors (several punishments). The article will carry out a theoretical examination of the handling of the situation in which two or more punishments coexist (including coexistence of several administrative punishments and of an administrative punishment with a criminal punishment) in an attempt to faithfully portray the “ double jeopardy” principle in the Administrative Punishment Law and decide whether improvements can be made to this law and related laws. In the early days, the “double jeopardy” principle was considered to belong to the legal realm. As it possesses features characteristic of a basic litigant right, most scholars are of the opinion that it has evolved into a constitutional principle. As a result, it has been applied to a wider array of fields than in British and American legal systems, an advance in human rights protection. It is hoped that the suggestions made in the article in terms of system construction and revision of laws may be of some help to the development of the legal system.