English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 118291/149328 (79%)
Visitors : 78021032      Online Users : 224
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
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158246


    Title: 犯罪物沒收於第三人適用之研究
    The Study of Third Party Confiscations of Objects Used in Crime
    Authors: 李聖傑
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 犯罪物沒收;第三人沒收;財產權;刑事政策
    Third Party Confiscation;Confiscation of Objects Used in Crime;Property Right;Criminal Policy
    Date: 2018-10
    Issue Date: 2025-07-31 15:49:34 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 我國刑法於2015 年對於沒收規範進行大幅修正，在刑法法律效果的性質定性中，以專章規範，不再以刑罰之「從刑」看待，藉由「財產權干預處分」，取代舊有專屬於犯罪處罰的制裁意義。其中，由刑事政策角度出發，現行刑法建構出不同法理基礎之沒收類型，即「利得沒收」和「犯罪物沒收」，前者以「任何人不得因不法獲得利益」為法理，而後者則透過對「財產權濫用」的正當干預，亦即「建構正當財產秩序」為依據，且於規範上擴張第三人沒收之適用，以貫徹制度之目的。惟修正後現行刑法第38 條第3 項之規定，就犯罪物沒收「無正當理由」的要件仍是較為寬泛，且作為判斷標準的「提供」、「取得」此二要件的內涵，在修法時，並未具體化，而有賴後續司法、刑事法學界補充其實質內涵。為了進一步落實新法規範之目的於個案應用與解釋操作，申請人擬透過本計畫進一步研究立法背景時具有相類似規範的德國法制，細緻探究其「提供型」和「取得型」之區別思考及要件設計，並得作為新法「建構正當財產秩序」干預處分發動前提「正當理由」的詮釋依據，以期增益甫經過制度修正，尚未有充足案例累積的我國法制，能於後續實務見解應用時真正貫徹立法目的，並落實新法之規範精神。
    In 2015, the Criminal Code of Republic of China was amended substantially on the system of confiscations, which was amended as a specific chapter, differing from the “ancillary punishment” position before. Confiscations were turned to the neutral “property-rights-restraining-dispositions” under constitutional point of view. Under the perspective of criminal policy, there are two types of confiscations based on different legitimate basis. Confiscation of Proceeds of the crime is based on the “crime doesn’t pay” principal, while “confiscations of objects Used in crime” is based on purpose of the law to construct a legal property order. To carry out the purpose of the law, the amendment expands the application of the confiscation of the third party as well. However, the factors “no justification,” “providing” and “obtaining” in the Article 38 (3) of the existing amended Criminal Law, which is about the third party confiscations of objects used in crime, are vague to some degree. By further considering the German criminal law with similar norms, studying the difference between “offering” and “obtaining” elements design under the norms, this study is expected to make the meaning of factors above clear, and made the purpose of the confiscation system done.
    Relation: 科技部, MOST106-2410-H004-082, 106.08-107.07
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML51View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback