英文摘要 |
By reviewing the opinions and insights of Supreme Court on criminal law in the last year, this study chooses some important issues to investigate each chosen decisions whether these do properly use the dogmatic methods within the range of literal interpretation under “Nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without a law)” and to determine whether the criteria given by Supreme Court does meet the requirement of restraining criminal law principle, systematic interpretation of legal good, and the principle of proportionality or not. This article focuses on three main issues to discussion. First, this study reviews the concept that distinguishes between substance and interest in the property crime, and then discusses about public official crime, especially two subtopics the definition of the public official in the general provisions and substantial influence. There are a lots of discussion about the problems of the definition of public official in recent years, including how the so-called “public affairs” should be defined. While the court inclines to take a narrow literal interpretation, it’s still worth observation. In the end, this study discusses the criteria of sexual offenses Art. 225. After reviewing standards taken each issues, this article will give further analysis. |