行政罰法上剝奪不法利得制度之比較法研究

Comparative Law Research on the Deprivation of Illegal Benefits in Administrative Penalty Law

行政罰法關於不法利得之剝奪規定在第18條第2項、第20條及第15條第3項但書。這些規定固然可以達到一定成效，但參照德國違反秩序罰法相關規定可知，仍然有諸多值得改進之處。首先，行政罰法第18條第2項規定得於「所得利益之範圍內」酌量加重罰鍰，未來宜修法改以所得利益總額作為罰鍰之下限。其次，行政罰法第20條第1項處理我國特有之轉嫁罰規定之不法利得追繳，固有其必要性，不過仍然應引進德國違反秩序罰法第29a條第1項規定，以處理行為人為自己採取違反義務行為而獲利，卻因故未受處罰之情形；同條第2項則應刪除「行為人應受處罰」之要件，以符合不法利得之規範意旨，並消除缺漏。再者，行政罰法第15條第3項但書與第18條第2項有相同規定，亦應修法改以所得利益總額作為罰鍰之下限為妥；而第15條第1項、第2項，以董事或其他有代表權之人有故意或重大過失為要件，不包含普通過失（輕過失），失之寬鬆，不足以達到一般預防及特別預防之效果。而晚近增訂之食品安全衛生管理法第49條之2以及水污染防治法第66條之2規定，將不法利得之剝奪完全由罰鍰中脫離，分別改以沒入及追繳機制為之，與行政罰法第18條第2項之出發點不同，徒增法律適用之複雜性，益凸顯行政罰法相關規定實有修改之必要。至於不法利得之剝奪，究竟應以加重罰鍰為主、追繳機制為輔，抑或全面改以追繳或沒入機制為之，只要足以達到警戒貪婪之立法目的，並且清楚明晰無適用疑義，其實並無明顯優劣，均無不可。

Article 18(2) Article 20, and Article 15(3) of the Administrative Penalty Law provide the deprivation of illegal benefits. While these provisions can achieve some success, but there are still many defects to be improved. First, in accordance with Article 18(2), a fine may be imposed in the “range of illegal benefits”. In the future, it should be amended to take the total amount of illegal benefits as the lower limit of the fine. Secondly, Article 20(1) deals with the deprivation of illegal benefits under some special provisions of Taiwan. It is inherently necessary. However, it is still necessary to introduce the provision of Article 29a(1) of the German administrative penalty law. Section 2 of the same article of the Administrative Penalty Law shall delete the element of “the behavior shall be punished”, in order to conform to the normative intention and to eliminate the legal shortcoming. Moreover, in accordance with Article 15(1)(2), intentional or gross negligence is a precondition for the responsibility of directors or other representatives. It doesn’t include ordinary negligence (light negligence) and thus isn’t enough to achieve the effect of general and special prevention. Finally, the new Article 49-2 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation and Article 66-2 of the Water Pollution Control Act provide the deprivation of illegal benefits, too. But there tactics are different from those in Article 18(2) of the Administrative Penalty Law. It complicates the application of law. It shows the necessity to modify the relevant provisions of the administrative penalty law.