月旦知識庫
 
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫事相關   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   重要期刊 DOI文章
篇名
食品攙偽或假冒的抽象危險犯辯證
並列篇名
An Argumentation on the Offender of Abstract Danger of Adulterated or Counterfeited Food
作者 張麗卿
中文摘要
正確妥當的適用法律,是法院的重要工作。法官不是藝人,法官的任務不在取悅社會大眾,而是守住刑法的界線。守住刑法的界線,並非避卻五穀,而是法律適用的論理上必須無懈可擊。最高法院一○五年度第十八次刑事庭會議決議,面對紛擾的實務意見及學說爭議,挺身而出、仗義執言,清楚說明食安法第四九條第一項的攙偽或假冒屬於抽象危險犯的立法意旨,以及該條項係為維護國人健康、消費者權益等多元法益。該項決議一方面守住刑法的界線,另一方面也指出正確適用法律的精確法理。益眾利民、殊堪敬佩。
英文摘要 The primary task of the court is to apply laws accurately and properly. Surely there is no need for the court to satisfy the public opinion, but the courthave to deal with those high-profile food safety cases with muchmore caution. The reasoning part of legal applicationin particular must be flawless and convincing, otherwise it would be hard for the judicial branch to play a role in balancing social interests or might even raisebad criticism. Judges are not entertainers; their task is not to please the publicbut to guard the boundary of Criminal Code, which meansthat the judge are supposed to make accurate and proper decisions instead of living in their own ivory tower. Fortunately, the 18th Resolution of Criminal Divisions Conference of Supreme Court in 2016 clarified that the offense described in the article 49 section 1 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation is an Offender of Abstract Danger, and the legislative purpose of that article is to protect the legal interests such as the health of citizens and the rights of consumers. On one hand, this resolution of Supreme Court guards the bottom line of Criminal Code successfully and responses to the legislative purposes faithfully; on the other hand, it also shows anaccurate result of the application of the Act. 
起訖頁 76-96
關鍵詞 食品安全抽象危險犯攙偽或假冒最高法院一○五年度第十七次刑事庭會議決定Adulterated or CounterfeitedFood Safety
刊名 月旦法學雜誌
出版單位 元照出版公司
期數 201702 (261期)
DOI 10.3966/102559312017020261006  複製DOI  DOI申請
QRCode
 



讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄