英文摘要 |
In Article 1 of the Administrative Penalty Act in Taiwan, confiscation is in juxtaposition with other types of administrative penalties, and is defined as one type of penalties, which shows its important status in the Administrative Penalty Act. In the relevant provisions, only the confiscation of sanction-nature was regulated. The confiscation of non-sanction-nature, in opposition, was entrusted individual laws and regulations in its own discretion. However, confiscation was defined as a type of penalties in the Administrative Penalty Act, and was treated as one of the major penalties. It is necessary to clarify whether the confiscation is of sanction-nature only, as well as whether there shall be a complete regulation design, especially in the aspect of legislative policy. In addition, the newly revised Criminal Law made a drastic amendment to the forfeiture, which is closely related to the nature of the confiscation. The content of the amendment should provide reference for how to deal with the re gulation of confiscation in the Administrative Penalty Act. Furthermore, the Germany “Violating Order Act”, which affected deeply the legislation of the Administrative Penalty Act in Taiwan, has complete rules of confiscation and could be a reference for this issue. Moreover, I will return to the legal system of Taiwan to explore the relevant provisions of confiscation in the Administrative Penalty Act, mainly Article 1 and Article 21 to Article 23, in order to clarify its nature and the content of relevant provisions. Finally, some domestic scholars have proposed some deep-rooted opinions on whether the Administrative Penalty Act should be amended after the amendment of Criminal Law, which will be reviewed in this article, and some personal opinions would be provided for reference. |