English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88668/118332 (75%)
Visitors : 23507083      Online Users : 619
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/121666
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/121666


    Title: 犯罪物沒收
    Confiscation of Criminal Object
    Authors: 李聖傑
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: Criminal Object;Instrument of Crime;Crinimal Confiscation;Criminal Proceeds Confiscation;Interference to Property Right
    犯罪物;犯罪工具;刑法沒收;犯罪利得沒收;財產權干預
    Date: 2016-04
    Issue Date: 2018-12-28 15:57:40 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: The new criminal law confiscation norms that began to implement since July 1, 2016 has already let the legal effect escaped from punishment and Rehabilitative Measures, and showing the different meaning between criminal object comfiscation and criminal proceeds comfiscation. Therefore, comfiscation have a new and complete system appearance and no longer being treated as accessory punishments. Compared to criminal proceeds comfiscation, the legal basis of depriveing criminal object by nation should have different interpretation, and should get rid of the traditional “punishment” or “Rehabilitative Measures” classification restrictions. While interrogation the criminal policy of interrogation confiscated interventions to safeguarding the public interest and prohibit abusing of property rights, we could considerate the appropriateness of the principle of proportionality in interference to property right, and achieve universal expectations of eradication of crime, maintaining social order by completely deprived of benefits associated with the crime at the national law to protect people’s property rights concept premise.
    刑法沒收的新規範體系,跳脫刑罰與保安處分的法律效果思維,不再將沒收定位為從刑。而國家剝奪犯罪物使用;收益等處分權利的法理基礎,與「利得沒收」應有不同依據。本文以沒收干預手段之維護公共利益與沒收標的之財產權濫用禁止的刑事政策,認為可以財產權管制的比例原則,建構犯罪物沒收的法理依據,並因此說明犯罪物沒收原型的判斷標準,與犯罪物沒收及於第三人的檢視要件。藉以在適用結果上徹底貫徹與犯罪關聯的物之歸咎意義,並在國家保障人民財產權的法治理念前提下,消滅犯罪憑藉;達成維護社會治安的全民期待。
    Relation: 月旦法學雜誌,No.251,pp.60-72.
    Data Type: article
    DOI: 10.3966/102559312016040251003
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML11View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback