| 篇名 |
施用毒品處遇之訴訟條件與刑事簡式審判程序──最高法院111年度台上字第1289號判決評析 |
| 並列篇名 |
The Procedural Prerequisites of Alternative Treatment on Drug Abuse and Summary Trial Procedure: Comments on No.1289 Criminal Judgement (2022) of Supreme Court |
| 作者 |
吳燦 |
| 中文摘要 |
毒品危害防制條例於2020年1月修正公布，對於施用毒品者機構內之處遇程序，最高法院變更先前決議，以3年為期，建立觀察勒戒與刑罰制裁交替運用之治療模式，不免致原本適用刑事簡式審判程序之施用毒品案件，其刑罰處遇之訴訟條件改變。依通常程序起訴之案件，得轉軌改行簡式審判程序者，以被告就被訴事實為有罪之陳述為必要條件之一，簡式審判程序得否因訴訟條件之欠缺，而為免訴或不受理判決，及就裁判上一罪案件，為一部有罪、他部不另為免訴或不受理之諭知，審判實務見解歧異，本文爰藉此案例加以說明釐清。 |
| 英文摘要 |
In respond to the amendment of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act in January, 2020, the Supreme Court has changed its previous resolution and built a 3-year treatment model which switched between rehabilitation penalty and criminal punishment. This evolution inevitably causeed the procedural prerequisites of alternative treatment on drug abuse cases which applied summary trial procedure before the amendment to change. The defendant pleading guilty is one of the necessary conditions that make cases filed in regular proceeding be diverted to summary trial procedure. This article will focus on whether judgment of “exempt from prosecution” and judgment of “case not entertained” can be pronounced due to the lack of certain conditions of litigation, and whether the court can pronounce a judgment of guilty for a part of the facts of an offense and not pronounce a judgment of “exempt from prosecution”, or a judgment of “case not entertained”, for the remaining part of the facts. Courts in Taiwan are yet to reach a consistent opinion concerning these questions mentioned above. |
| 起訖頁 |
57-76 |
| 關鍵詞 |
簡式審判程序、訴訟條件、施用毒品、觀察勒戒、程序轉軌、Summary Trial Procedure、Procedural Prerequisites、Drug Abuse、Rehabilitation Penalty、The Diversion of Procedure |
| 刊名 |
月旦法學雜誌 |
| 出版單位 |
元照出版公司
|
| 期數 |
202210 (329期) |
| DOI |
10.53106/1025593132905 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
