想像競合從重處斷與輕罪的併科罰金──評最高法院111年度台上字第977號刑事判決

Concurrence of Offenses and Find

想像競合本質上為真正競合，故其中所有罪名，無論輕重，均屬成立且得以適用（而非僅成立或僅論以重罪）。「從一重處斷」只是針對異種想像競合所預設的主刑量刑框架（上限和下限）劃定規則，法院循此規則形成單一主刑。依照這個主刑框架的指示規則，法院要在所有罪名的法律效果間，找出最重的法律效果組合，而不是在決定「何法條（罪名）可得適用」，故無須侷限於單一條文所規定的法律效果。本文採取兩階段從重處斷模式，在具體操作上，法官首先要根據刑罰的種類，挑選出最重的「刑種組合」。其次再從所有罪名的適用刑度中，將同種類刑罰的最重上限和最重下限分別挑出，組合成該種刑罰類別的量刑框架。這些界限額度通常是出自同一個條文（所謂的重罪），但不必然如此。依此，即便僅有較輕罪名設有併科罰金而重罪無，法院仍得（或應）科處此等效果。

This article argues that“Idealkonkurrenz”in Article 55 is essentially an“echte Konkurrenz”. That is, all offenses proved are legally established. Based on this interpretation, Article 55 is meant to delineate the sentencing framework (maximum and minimum punishment) for the court. The court shall thus find the most severe combination of legal effects of all established offenses, instead of being constrained by the legal effect of one single proved offense. Specifically speaking, when the court applies Article 55, it shall go through two stages of sentencing. At the first stage, the court shall calculate the most severe combination of punishment of all offenses established. At the second stage, the court shall select the maximum and minimum of the same type of penalty. The maximum and minimum of the same type of penalty are usually, but not necessarily, derived from the same statute. However, if the less severe offense provides for accessory punishment, such as fine, confiscation, security measures, and compulsory medical treatments, the court could still include accessory punishments in its final sentence.