析論一行為不二罰原則之內涵與運用──兼評司法院釋字第754號解釋

Analyzing the Content and Application of the Principle of “One Act Shall Not Be Punished Twice”: Comments on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.754

違反行政法上義務行為之行為數認定爭議，並未因行政罰法第五章「單一行為及數行為之處罰」相關規定施行而平息，迄今學說及實務上仍未有共識。對此，2017年10月公布之司法院釋字第754號解釋，針對最高行政法院100年度5月份第2次庭長法官聯席會議決議，行為人於一份進口報單上未據實申報進口稅、貨物稅以及營業稅導致漏稅，應予併罰之見解，首次未援引其他憲法原則而僅以「法治國一行為不二罰之原則」進行違憲審查，且明確提出「一行為」之判斷標準，最終認定系爭決議所涉案例乃數行為而非一行為、予以併罰未牴觸此一原則而合憲。此引發本文思考一行為不二罰原則之內涵與運用、其是否已確立為我國憲法上之原則，以及本號解釋是否有助於釐清上開疑問？就此，本文於第一部分簡要說明問題意識以及研究範圍後，第二部分將進行國內相關文獻之彙整，探討一行為不二罰原則之內涵與基礎，並提出本文之見解。第三部分則接續分析一行為不二罰原則之運用，且擬先從行政法層次上此一原則之具體化規範──亦即行政罰法第五章相關規定──出發，爬梳學說及實務上行為數判準之爭議概況並提出本文之分析；而後再從學說以及釋憲實務二方面，探討憲法層次上此一原則之運用，並嘗試指出其問題點。於第四部分，承襲本文於前揭段落所提出之觀點，對司法院釋字第754號解釋進行評析。最後，第五部分則為本篇論述之總結。

Regarding the breach of duty under administrative law, the argument in theory and practice over the differentiation of single act from several acts has continued. The promulgation of Administrative Penalty Act, in which Chapter five specifies “Penalty for Single Act and Several Acts,” failed to close the debate. In this regard, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.754, released in October 2017, held that the resolution of the second Joint Meeting of the Supreme Administrative Court in May 2011, deciding that those filing one import declaration form to evade import duty, commodity tax, and business tax should be subject to three penalties, is consistent with the principle of “one act shall not be punished twice” embraced by a rule-of-law nation. It’s for the first time that the Constitutional Court solely applies this principle to conduct judicial review. Also, it sets out a general criterion for determining the number of acts. This interpretation leads to the following questions: what is the content of the principle of “one act shall not be punished twice”? How this principle takes effect? Has it been established as a constitutional principle? And finally, does Interpretation No.754 serve to clarify points mentioned above? With these issues in mind, after a brief introduction in Part I, related domestic documents will be summarized in Part II, analyzing the content and basis of the principle of “one act shall not be punished twice”. Following the discussion, Part III of this article aims to examine the application of this principle. This part will separate into two phase. First, starting from the law level, namely Chapter five of Administrative Penalty Act, which embodying the concept of this principle, the argument over the criterion for determining the number of acts will be presented, with the viewpoint of this article included. Second, on the constitutional level, by reviewing opinions both in theory and in Constitutional Court praxis, this paragraph looks into the practice of this principle and attempts to identify the problems. In Part IV, based on the analysis carried out in preceding chapters, a comment on Interpretation No.754 will be made. In the end, Part V will be a summing-up of this essay.