適用法律與填補漏洞之區別──以大法官再任、回任爭議為例

解釋法律與填補法律漏洞，是法律人終生的工作。長年來臺灣法學界一直欠缺法學方法論的知識，從歷年來法學著作文獻可以清楚看出此一現象。三十多年前個人即已建立整體法學方法論的架構，在此形式框架內，結合正義、人權與法治國家原則從事研究，撰寫論文。二年前將一部分有關法學方法論領域的論文，集結為二本論文集。可惜影響力不足，整體基本知識仍然沒有太大的改善。二○一七年關於大法官再（回）任爭議的整個論證，或更精確講：從媒體論戰與立法院公聽會過程，很清楚看到，絕大多數的法律教授與律師（包括大法官被提名人）誤以為自己在「解釋」憲法條文，且得到再（回）任不違憲的結論。本文針對大法官回任議題，由解釋方法與判斷法律漏洞，做一較多角度的論述。

Document design for consumer use refers to the design of various documents closely related to people’s lives. The information delivered from such documents should be able to help people view information, fill out reports and complete the task of payment. However, companies often do not pay sufficient attention to such documents. A poorly designed document leads to misreading and miswriting, to personal financial losses, even resulting in corporate image harm. This paper takes the electricity bill as an example and aims to learn about users’ problems on the use of current electricity bills, propose an updated proposal from a visual information design perspective, and offer effective design principles. A spiral model was applied in this paper to make a usability analysis on the original bill, and improve the proposal making and update the design for usability test. By a mixed method, including making textual analysis, expert focus group discussion, and usability testing, five key points and ten visualization methods were put forward. Six recommendations were also given for the improvement of document design, including 1) highlighting the most important information, 2) giving a clear visual framework, 3) arranging a reasonable and comfortable layout, 4) adding appropriate visual explanations, 5) using auxiliary symbols, and 6) friendly expressing information. We hope these findings can help designers continuously correct their prototypes in the practical application and present the document designs meeting the needs of users.