論不法利得之剝奪：以行政罰法為中心

On the Deprivation of Illegal Benefits: Focusing on the Administrative Penalty Act

我國近年來因若干涉及環境污染與食品安全之事件頻起，學說與實務競相討論行政罰法上，乃至刑法上的不法利得剝奪之制度，希冀藉由此一制度有效剝奪不肖業者以污染環境、危害食品安全等不法行為所獲得的暴利，以誡貪婪。本文在此即以行政罰法為中心，透過德國及日本相關法制的比較，檢討我國不法利得剝奪制度之設計的缺失。綜合各項討論後，本文認為，不法利得之剝奪的目的，初不在於對行為人主觀意思的責難，而是為調整客觀上因不法行為所改變的財產秩序，使其回復合法狀態。職是，一個完整且有效的不法利得剝奪之制度應合乎客觀性（不以不法行為之有責性為前提）與普遍性（能適用於各種不法行為類型）的要求。據此，本文爰提出一份以修正我國現行行政罰法第18條第2項、第15條第3項但書及第20條第1項與第2項為基礎的不法利得剝奪制度之改革方案；最後基於研究關連上之必要，也針對我國刑法在2016年就同一制度所完成的修正，提出若干評釋性意見。

Recent years have witnessed the frequent occurrence of environmental pollution and food safety cases, which leads to the prominence of academic discussions and legal practices on the deprivation of illegal benefits in administrative or criminal penalties, with the hope to reduce acquisitiveness in those cases. This paper, with a focus on administrative penalty, examinies the deficits in the deprivation of illegal benefits in Taiwan through a comparative analysis of German and Japanese laws. In sum, this paper finds that the aim of illegal benefits deprivation is not to blame the actors but to restore the lawful property possesion. Thus, a comprehensive and effective illegal benifits deprivation should answer to both tests of objectivity (without assuming the accountability of the actors) and pervasiveness (being applied to every illegal acts). This paper further proposes an amendment to Article 18, Section 2, Article 15, Section 3 (the qualifying clause) and Article 20, Sections 1 & 2 of the Administrative Penalty Act, and comments on the related 2016 amendment to the criminal penalty law.