| 英文摘要 |
Article 18(2) Article 20, and Article 15(3) of the Administrative Penalty Law provide the deprivation of illegal benefits. While these provisions can achieve some success, but there are still many defects to be improved. First, in accordance with Article 18(2), a fine may be imposed in the “range of illegal benefits”. In the future, it should be amended to take the total amount of illegal benefits as the lower limit of the fine. Secondly, Article 20(1) deals with the deprivation of illegal benefits under some special provisions of Taiwan. It is inherently necessary. However, it is still necessary to introduce the provision of Article 29a(1) of the German administrative penalty law. Section 2 of the same article of the Administrative Penalty Law shall delete the element of “the behavior shall be punished”, in order to conform to the normative intention and to eliminate the legal shortcoming. Moreover, in accordance with Article 15(1)(2), intentional or gross negligence is a precondition for the responsibility of directors or other representatives. It doesn’t include ordinary negligence (light negligence) and thus isn’t enough to achieve the effect of general and special prevention. Finally, the new Article 49-2 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation and Article 66-2 of the Water Pollution Control Act provide the deprivation of illegal benefits, too. But there tactics are different from those in Article 18(2) of the Administrative Penalty Law. It complicates the application of law. It shows the necessity to modify the relevant provisions of the administrative penalty law. |
