月旦知識庫
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫學   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   非核心 DOI文章
查看詳細全文
篇名
食品攙偽假冒與標示不實之入罪化
並列篇名
The Criminalization of Adulterated and Counterfeited Food and Mislabeling
作者 甘添貴
中文摘要
攙偽或假冒與標示不實,在概念上多有重疊。依現行食安法規定,食品或食品添加物之攙偽或假冒,為抽象危險犯;標示不實,如情節重大,足以危害或致危害人體健康,則為具體危險犯及實害犯,故二者之概念內涵與適用範圍,有適度釐清之必要。抽象危險犯之設計,一般認為係基於刑事立法之要求,只要有特定行為出現,其危險即由立法上加以擬制或推定,不容許反證推翻。惟倘依具體之個案予以客觀判斷,並無任何侵害法益之危險時,如不容許反證推翻,不但與刑法保護法益之規範目的不合,且使抽象危險犯之構成要件,形同霸王條款,顯為立法者之專橫與司法者之霸道。
英文摘要
There exist some overlapping parts between the concepts of mislabeling and adulteration or counterfeit. According to the current “Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation”, adulterated or counterfeited food additives will constitute abstract potential damage offence. On the other hand, mislabeling, if severe and may be sufficient to harmful to human health, will constitute concrete damage offence and actual damage offence. In this way, it is necessary for us to differentiate their concepts and application scopes. Generally, based on the requirements of criminal legislation, abstract potential damage offence is constituted once specific behavior appears and allows no disproof. However, this will too capricious and reckless if there is no potential damage to legal interests.
起訖頁 55-68
關鍵詞 攙偽假冒標示不實抽象危險犯具體危險犯實害犯Adulteration and CounterfeitMislabelingAbstract Potential Damage OffenceConcrete Damage OffenceActual Damage Offence
刊名 月旦法學雜誌  
期數 201606 (253期)
出版單位 元照出版公司
DOI 10.3966/102559312016060253006  複製DOI
QRCode
該期刊-上一篇 RCA判決與環境責任法制之關聯性
該期刊-下一篇 比較法之功能及其與行政法之關係
 

新書閱讀



最新講座


優惠活動




讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄