行政罰法中刑事優先原則爭議問題之研究──以德國法制之比較分析為中心

The Research on the Issues of Criminal Priority Principle of the Administrative Penalty Act: Focusing on Comparison and Analysis of German Legal Scheme

對於行政罰法第26條及第32條等規定，行政法院實務見解均認為其內含有所謂刑事優先原則之要求。依行政法院相關裁判見解，可知該等原則在程序法方面所彰顯者，乃是行政機關唯有在刑事程序因該法第32條第2項所定情形而終結後，方得對該同時違反行政法上義務規定之同一行為裁處罰鍰；反向而言，即係行政機關在該等刑事程序尚未終結前，不得先行該同一行為裁處罰鍰，否則即屬違法而得撤銷之。然而，此等裁判見解往往導致行政機關陷於無法及時追究違反行政法上義務規定之行為之窘境，同時並可能衍生例如罰金明顯輕於罰鍰等爭議問題。有鑑於此，本文乃以台南地方法院行政訴訟庭107年簡字第71號，以及高雄高等行政法院107年訴字第505號等二則判決所涉及之法律爭議，以及裁判見解為基礎，分析在刑事優先原則下是否容許有例外之可能。此外，本文並將由比較法之觀點，探究德國秩序違反罰法相關規定之規範內容與所形構之處理機制，進而反思我國法制，並嘗試對行政機關所面臨之困境提出可能之解決途徑。

The judgements of the Administrative Court generally consider that regulations stipulated in Article 26 and Article 32 of the Administrative Penalty Act encompass the Criminal Priority Principle. Based on the relevant judgements of the Administrative Court, the manifestation of this principle in procedural law is as follows: If an act simultaneously constitutes a criminal offense and a breach of duty under administrative law, administrative agencies are able to impose administrative fines for the breach of duty under administrative law only after the criminal procedures for the same act have ended due to the conditions stated in Paragraph 2, Article 32 of the Administrative Penalty Act. Conversely, administrative agencies shall not impose administrative fines for an act of the aforementioned type before the completion of criminal procedures; otherwise, the imposed fines could be revoked on the grounds of illegal practice. However, the aforementioned judgements typically place the administrate agencies in the predicament of being unable to hold the relevant individual for the breach of duty under administrative law in a timely manner. In addition, these judgements may result in controversial problems such as the imposed fine being substantially smaller than the imposed administrative fine. Accordingly, the current study analyzed the possibility of exceptions under the criminal priority principle. Legal controversies and judgements for two cases - namely 2018 Jian Zhi No. 71 Judgement of Administrative Litigation Division of Tainan District Court and 2018 Shu Zhi No. 505 Judgement of Kaohsiung High Administrative Court - were used as bases of the analysis. From the perspective of comparative law, the researchers also examined the procedural mechanism shaped by the contents stipulated in the relevant regulations of Germany’s Act on Regulatory Offences, reflected on Taiwan’s legislation, and proposed possible solutions for the problem faced by the respective administrative agencies.