| 中文摘要 |
"在108年10月17日，最高法院刑二庭把車手這個犯罪角色，因為同時構成加重詐欺、組織犯罪防制條例，是不是應該依組織犯罪防制條例宣告刑前強制工作的爭議，裁定呈提交由大法庭。然而，因為這是在實務上層出不窮的案件，也因為詐騙集團不好抓，最後真正抓到的大多是「車手」，法院依法判決時，因為組織犯罪防制條例的修正（106年），修正後，凡是以實施詐欺為手段所組成的具有持續性、牟利性的結構性組織，就是屬於犯罪組織，例如：詐欺集團。這也是立法者在修法時，所想要處理的範圍。但在修法後，屬於保安處分性質的強制工作，也從原本的刑後，改為刑前執行。也形成了，假設被判處1年有期徒刑的車手，卻要在刑之執行前，強制工作3年之久，這也讓實務界開始有檢討的聲浪，故在此次大法庭第一個的案子，就是處理這個爭議，本文將當中所涉及之肯、否見解整理，並在第四章整理、分析在大法庭裁定後，實務見解之變遷，並在結論提出個人之些許淺見。On October 17, 108, the Supreme Court's Second Division of Criminal Law ruled that the driver ’s criminal role, because it also constitutes aggravated fraud and organized crime prevention regulations, should be declared in accordance with the organized crime prevention regulations. Submitted by the Grand Court. However, because this is an endless number of cases in practice, and because the fraud groups are not easy to catch, most of the real drivers were ''drivers''. When the court judged according to law, because of the amendment of the Organized Crime Prevention Regulations (106), the amendment Later, any structural organization that is persistent and profitable by using fraud as a means is a criminal organization, such as a fraud group. This is also the scope that legislators want to deal with when revising the law. However, after the amendment of the law, the compulsory work of a nature of security punishment was also changed from the original post-sentence to pre-sentence execution. It has also been formed. Suppose that a driver who has been sentenced to one year in prison has to work for three years before the execution of the sentence. This has also caused the practice community to have a review. Therefore, the first The case is to deal with this controversy. This article sorts out the opinions and opinions involved in it, and sorts and analyzes the changes in the practical opinions after the ruling by the court in Chapter 4, and puts forward some personal opinions in the conclusion." |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
