英文摘要 |
"The practical opinion of the courts has adopted the dichotomy mode towards the issue of whether the period of detention in the foreign countries can be jail-credited or not. The adjudicates of detention in the foreign countries had been divided into the ones that are“requested by the mutual legal assistance made by Taiwan”and the ones that are“non-requested by the mutual legal assistance made by Taiwan”. The former ones have been considered as the extension of the exercise of the judicial right of Taiwan, videlicet, the detention in the foreign countries would be constructed to the detention in Taiwan and would apply to Article 37-2 of the Criminal Code. Per contra, the detentions non-requested by the mutual Legal Assistance made by Taiwan could only jail-credit nothing. However, the Supreme Court has recently made an innovate ruling (Ruling No.1082 of the Supreme Court in 2020). The ruling mentioned that the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan should apply Article 37-2 of the Criminal Code and Article 10 of the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act analogously. It also cited the convention against Corruption of the United Nation and the principals of mutual legal assistance in criminal-matters. However, this study finds the reason and the conclusion of the ruling in conflict. Although the conclusion of applying the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan analogously to the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act is reasonable, the rationales are not. The conclusion of applying the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan to Article 37-2 of Criminal Code analogously isn’t ideal, either. According to Strafgesetzbuch (the German penal code) and concerning the jurisdictions are varied, the detention should be generally applied to Article 9 of the Criminal Code by analogy and should be applied analogously to Article 10 of the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act as a supplement." |