| 英文摘要 |
The Penal Code§25 in Taiwan provides: The attempted penalty that has embarked on criminal acts, but are not the implementation of those, has are limited to special provisions, and by them, the attempt-ed penalty may reduce the torture of the complete crime. That is the principle of criminal law which imposes no penalty on administrative attempted behavior only exception to the law when there are special provisions for attempted penalty. But that principle leads to generate controversy, should this principle be applicable to the administrative order penalty? There are types of the breach of the duty of the state administration. There shall be in breach of the duty of the state ad-ministration which happen to some results for the elements from the breach of the duty of the state administration, such as the administra-tive attempted behavior does not occur a certain result of accom-plished penalty. The administrative attempted behavior does not occur on a certain outcome, and should it be imposed by penalties, or the law not expressed do not have penalties for administrative at-tempted behavior? There have always been controversial. Unfortu-nately, our Administrative Penalty Act on February 5, 2006 in force is not expressly provided for administrative attempted behavior. This paper attempts, from the direction of social change and risk, to advo-cate the object of the penalty without the necessity to distinguish between attempted penalty and accomplished penalty, and both of them are proposed with discussion and conclusions. |
