牴觸法律授權目的、忽視行政罰原理的一般裁量規則──綜評「食品安全衛生管理法第44條第1項罰鍰裁罰標準」

General Discretionary Rule Which Contradicts the Objectives of Legal Authorization and Overlooks Administrative Penalty Principles: General Assessment on the Penal Standard under Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation

自2104年12月10日起，食品安全衛生管理法第44條第1項設定的罰鍰級距，提升至最高新臺幣2億元。為使裁罰金額得觸及修正後陡升的上限，並考量本次修正後，罰鍰裁量範圍差距擴大，衛生福利部爰依據同條第2項之授權，發布並施行「食品安全衛生管理法第四十四條第一項罰鍰裁罰標準」，設計出以附表所列「基本額度」及「各項加權係數」相乘之積，作為計算罰鍰額度的一般裁量基準。
經審視系爭裁罰標準後，本文主張，除其呈現出的最終罰鍰額度之計算架構牴觸食安法第44條第1項之授權目的外：
未區分因故意或過失給予不同程度的裁罰，以及有害健康物質的危害程度輕重僅取決於致癌與否，構成裁量怠惰而違法。
其次，各附表中基本罰鍰的設定、以及與客觀上輕重歧異的加權係數安排，牴觸責罰相當原則，構成裁量濫用。將食品業者的資力大小一律列為加權與否之變項，違反了行政罰法第18條第1項及不當聯結禁止原則。
再者，食安法第44條第1項並未賦予主管機關按次處罰的權限，各附表決定基本罰鍰額度卻係以「一年內裁罰次數」作為行為數判斷標準；一行為同時違反不同行政法規的想像競合，各附表卻又以加權事由視之而未依法定罰鍰額最高之規定裁處時，等於違背了行政罰上的行為數判斷方式與競合規則。
最後，系爭裁罰標準於未能取得銷售額之資料者，得根據行為人之資本額來決定來資力加權的係數，等同脫免了依職權調查之原則。
職是，為確保系爭裁罰標準合乎行政法法律規則及原則，主管機關首應捨棄藉由數學公式將基本罰鍰乘以各項係數的思考方式，調整各附表中，不符比例而使責罰失衡的加權係數。此外，參照德國違反秩序罰法，行為人經濟實力大小此一要素，難與其他加權事實並列為應考量之因素。最後，須區分行為人主觀上故意或過失所致之違法，施予不同程度的裁罰，以及剔除「違反工廠法」、「檢出經禁止使用之農藥或動物用藥」兩項加權事實，以免重複將因競合規則已被排除適用之其他行政義務規定，納入評價。

The penalty levels under Article 44, Paragraph 1of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation have been raised to amaximum of NT$200 million since December 10, 2014. To allow apenalty amount to reach the ceiling, which has surged after the amendment, and to accommodate the expanded range of penalty as aresult of the amendment, the Ministry of Health and Welfare promulgated and implemented on May 13, 2016 the Penal Standard for Article 44, Paragraph 1of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, in which the product of the“basic amount”and“each weighted coefficient”set forth in the schedules is designed as the general penal basis for calculating the penalty amount.
After reviewing the Penal Standard at Issue, the author believes that the calculation method for the ultimate amount as depicted in the penalty calculation structure violates the objectives of the authorization under Article 44, Paragraph 1of the Act. In addition:
1. It fails to impose different penalties for willful or negligent violation of Article 8, Paragraphs 1and 2, and the hazard level of the heath impairing substances depends entirely on carcinogenicity, resulting in legal violation due to discretionary indolence.
2. In addition, the setup of basic penalties and the arrangements of weighted coefficients for objective severity in various schedules constitute discretionary abuse in violation of the principle that the punishment should be commensurate with the liability; and the financial strength of food operators is used indiscriminately to determine whether any weighting will be applied in violation of Article 18, Paragraph 1of the Administrative Penalty Act and of the principle of improper connection.
3. Moreover, the provision of Article 44, Paragraph 1of the Act does not authorize the competent authority to impose apenalty upon each occurrence. However, the“number of times penalties are imposed in ayear”is relied on as the basis for determining the number of acts for the basic penalty amount in each schedule. In addition, if one act is subject to ideal concurrence for violating different administrative laws and regulations at the same time and each schedule fails to impose penalties based on the maximum statutory penal amount when aweighted factor is applied to such act, this violates the method for determining the number of acts subject to administrative penalties and the concurrence rule.
4. Finally, the Penal Standard at Issue arrive at the financial weighted coefficient based on the authorized capital of the actor on the ground that sales information cannot be obtained. This is tantamount to the exemption of ex officio investigation.
Therefore, to ensure that the Penal Standard at Issue meets administrative law rules and principles, competent authorities should give up the idea of applying amathematic formula to multiply abasic penalty amount with all kinds of coefficient. Instead, it is necessary to adjust the weighted coefficients that do not meet the proportionality requirement and tip the balance of punishment and liability in the weighting facts enumerated in each schedule. In addition, in reference to the Law on Administrative Offenses of Germany, the factor of an actor’s economic strength can not be considered primarily along with other weighting facts as consideration factors. Finally, different degrees of penalty should be imposed for legal violations arising from an actor’s subjective willfulness and negligence under Schedule 1and Schedule 2. Moreover, the two weighting facts―“factory illegality weighting”and“illegal items tested and found to contain pesticides and medicine for animals which are prohibited from use pursuant to announcements of agricultural authorities”―should be removed to prevent repetitive inclusion in the scope of assessment of other administrative obligations which have been excluded pursuant to the concurrence rule.