刑事罰と行政割の區別をめじる問題：日本の刑事罰と行政罰に關する運用と議論

本報告的主題為「論刑事罰與行政罰之區別」。在日本有關此一主題的討論，雖然其中所存在的問題相當具有重要性，但是在日本並未受到重視。理由之一在於，由於此議題是夾在行政法學與刑事法學之間的課題，或許因此導致這兩個學術領域在此課題的討論上相互之間存在著謙讓心態。我研究的專門領域是行政法學，在此方面具有代表性的體系書中，和其他行政作用的敘述相較之下，有關行政罰的敘述都明顯較少。有關此點，在本次研討會中將刑事罰與行政罰之區別作為一個主題來討論，從日本的角度來看，確實意義深遠。在今天的報告中，首先簡單地說明針對刑事罰與行政罰之區別在當前日本國內的討論情況。接著，說明在此情況下日本國內所集中討論的幾個問題點。第三、著眼於日本國內實踐情況，介紹日本在此方面所衍生的功能缺失與其原因。最後，說明日本最近的發展，以及有關制裁以外的行政手段方面被提出的問題點，導論出區別刑事罰與行政罰之理論發展對於架構適當的行政過程中有其必要性。

The Japanese law scholars traditionally argue the sanction for the violators of the administrative laws named gyousei-batsu (administrative sanction). The gyousei-batsu is classified in 1) gyousei-keibatsu (sanction prescribed by the Penal Code） and 2) chitsujo-batsu (noncriminal punishment, named karyo, for disturbing administrative eutaxy or order). 1) gyousei-keibatsu is a penalty for violating administrative laws (not Penal Code) as a minor crime. It is imposed pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Also general provisions of the Penal Code is applicable. On the other hand, general provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply to 2) chitsujo-batsu. It is imposed based on the administrative procedure. It is whether criminal or administartive to distinguish both 1) gyousei-keibatsu and 2) chitsujo-batsu. Further, Japanese administrative law scholars recently tend to be discreet about using gyousei-batsu. Instead, from a viewpoint of ensuring administrative effectiveness, they investigate the new methods or measures, such as an administrative indirect compulsory execution, exclusion from government contract, official release of the violators information (e.g. name of company or its president) etc, and argue in parallel with gyousei-batsu.