2020年刑事法實務發展回顧：綜評刑事大法庭元年的競合論爭議

A Review of Criminal Justice in 2020:Legal Disputes Concerning Concurrency Theory

2020年刑事大法庭制度正式啟動，在刑事大法庭元年所宣示的11則裁定中，共有5則涉及競合理論的實體法及程序法問題，本文以競合理論為中心，具體分析這5則關涉想像競合及法條競合的大法庭裁定，具體見解包括：（1）想像競合輕罪的封鎖作用，僅於有法律明文規定時才及於保安處分；（2）想像競合部分事實可自首、部分事實不得自首時，該想像競合處斷刑限於自首有助節約偵查成本時方得適用自首減刑規定；（3）證券交易法之非常規交易罪與特別背信罪之構成要件不具有概括／個別關係，不構成法條競合，只能論以想像競合，並從重罪特別背信罪處斷；（4）一行為犯轉讓毒品罪及轉讓禁藥罪，兩罪應屬法條競合關係，僅成立個別規定之轉讓毒品罪；（5）事實審法院對實質或裁判上一罪之部分事實，若認定為無罪，僅被告對有罪部分上訴，該無罪部分即於事實審確定，三審法院不得審理之。根本言之，大法庭制度的確在統一實務見解上有其重要意義，但真正核心仍然是大法庭能否建構刑法理論基礎，進而作成合理的統一解釋。

In 2020, the Joint Senate for Criminal Cases of the Taiwan Supreme Court formally opened its door. It is undoubtedly a crucial moment for the settling of legal disputes and the resolving of conflicting interpretations. Of the eleven decisions in the Joint Senate’s inaugural year, five decisions concern the application of the Concurrency Theory. This Article critically analyzes the five decisions from the perspective of the Concurrency Theory. It advances the following arguments: 1. The Blocking Effect (Sperrwirkung) from the lower penalty crime extends to rehabilitive measures statutes only if prescribed by law; 2. When a single offense constitutes two counts of crime concurrently and only one count of crime is surrenderable, a surrender must secure cost reduction benefit for the investigation bureaus, for the triggering of Article 62 Mitigation Statute to occur; 3. A single offense that constitutes Special Criminal Breach of Trust and the Crime of Non-Arm's Length Transactions concurrently shall result in the penalties prescribed in the Special Criminal Breach of Trust statute of the Securities and Exchange Act; 4. When a single offense constitutes the Illegal Transfer of Narcotics and the Transfer of Prohibited Substance concurrently, the court should convict the defendant on the count of Illegal Transfer of Narcotics; 5. In the event that the trial court partially acquits a defendant for a criminal offense, and the defendant appeals the convictions on other counts of crimes for that same offense to a superior court, the trial court’s judgement of acquittal is finalized and the superior court may not vacate the acquitting judgement. The Article concludes that, while the Joint Senate indeed plays an important role in resolving legal questions and conflicting interpretations, the pivotal question remains whether the Joint Senate’s decisions can build on robust theoretical foundations, which is the key to the reasonable interpretation of law.