當弦外之音成為主弦律──評釋字第775號解釋兼論解釋公布後之量刑新趨勢

When Undertone Becomes the Main Theme: Comments on the J.Y. Interpretation No.775 and the Subsequent New Trend of Sentencing

司法院釋字775號解釋要求法院在修法前就個案依本解釋意旨裁量是否加重最低本刑，以避免發生罪刑不相當之情形。就此，實務上分成忠於解釋文文義的「例外個案裁量不加重」以及「得裁量加重」這兩種不同的見解。本文除分析這兩種見解的利與弊之外，從刑罰理論出發，認為累犯加重規定必須從行為責任增加說的角度加以理解，始得以勉強合乎罪責原則之要求。現行實務的科刑流程「法定刑→處斷刑→宣告刑」應微調成「法定刑→處斷刑→責任刑→宣告刑」，累犯加重屬於處斷範圍內部關於責任刑的加重，而非處斷範圍的調整。累犯加重的裁量，應在以第57條之犯情因素形成責任刑上下限後始得為之，因此其加重不能超越法定刑劃定之上限。本文另根據上述意旨，針對新修正之刑法第185條之3第3項進行限定解釋。

To avoid disproportionate punishment against the crime, the J.Y. Interpretation 775 requests courts to assess whether to aggravate the minimum principal punishment per the said Interpretation prior to the amendment. Given such conditions, court practices are divided into two different interpretations: “no aggravation for exceptional cases” and “discretionary aggravation”. This article, in addition to analyze the pros and cons of the foregoing two interpretations, opines that aggravation for recidivists shall be comprehended from the perspective of the increased responsibility of conduct theory to barely satisfy the principle of culpability. The current practice’s sentencing procedure shall be slightly adjusted from “statutory punishment→sentencing punishment → declaratory punishment” to “statutory punishment→sentencing punishment → punishment of responsibility→declaratory punishment”. The aggravation of recidivists, instead of adjusting the discretionary scope, is actually the aggravation of the punishment of responsibility within such scope. The discretion shall only be made until the maximum and minimum limits of the said punishment are established in accordance with Article 57, therefore, its aggravation shall not exceed the maximum limit of the statutory punishment. Additionally, based on the above spirits, this article also made a restrictive explanation regarding the newly-amended Paragraph 3 of Article 185-3.