論行政罰對「未遂行為」之處罰問題

On the Issues of Administrative Penalty for Attempted Behavior

刑法第二十五條規定：「已著手於犯罪行為之實行而不遂者，為未遂犯。未遂犯之處罰，以有特別規定者為限，並得按既遂犯之刑減經之。」即刑法原則上不處罰未遂，僅例外於法律有特別規定時始處罰未遂犯。惟此項原則可否適用秩序罰，產生爭議。違反行政法義務之行為態樣很多，有須以違反義務之行為發生一定結果為要件者，此時如行為並未發生一定結果，即屬於未遂。對未發生一定結果的未遂行為，是否應比照既遂一律處罰，或法無明文處罰未遂即不必處罰？向來有爭論。可惜我國二○○六年二月五日施行的行政罰法仍就行政未遂問題，未明文規定之。本文試圖從社會變遷與風險的方向，主張行政罰的處罰對象無區分既未遂之必要性，提出論述與結論。

The Penal Code§25 in Taiwan provides: The attempted penalty that has embarked on criminal acts, but are not the implementation of those, has are limited to special provisions, and by them, the attempt-ed penalty may reduce the torture of the complete crime. That is the principle of criminal law which imposes no penalty on administrative attempted behavior only exception to the law when there are special provisions for attempted penalty. But that principle leads to generate controversy, should this principle be applicable to the administrative order penalty? There are types of the breach of the duty of the state administration. There shall be in breach of the duty of the state ad-ministration which happen to some results for the elements from the breach of the duty of the state administration, such as the administra-tive attempted behavior does not occur a certain result of accom-plished penalty. The administrative attempted behavior does not occur on a certain outcome, and should it be imposed by penalties, or the law not expressed do not have penalties for administrative at-tempted behavior? There have always been controversial. Unfortu-nately, our Administrative Penalty Act on February 5, 2006 in force is not expressly provided for administrative attempted behavior. This paper attempts, from the direction of social change and risk, to advo-cate the object of the penalty without the necessity to distinguish between attempted penalty and accomplished penalty, and both of them are proposed with discussion and conclusions.