| 摘要註: |
一行為不二罰與一事不二罰究竟是否相同或不同,本文首先探討兩者之區別。一般而言在行政法之理論與實務上,即出現兩者混合使用之情形。一事不二罰之原則原為刑事法上的概念,是指同一行為不得受到二度或二度以上之處罰,而一行為不二罰原則係單純就事件實體內涵,指出國家不得對於人民之同一行為,以相同或類似之措施多次地處罰。我國行政罰法制定實施後,則明文使用一行為不二罰之概念,爾後行政法上一行為不二罰原則均包含一事不二罰之概念與內涵。而論述「一行為」,依據我國法以及德國法理論,則區分為「自然一行為」與「法律一行為」作為各項問題之論述基礎。「一行為不二罰」之原則,相關問題之探討則擴及至行政罰與執行罰之區隔,以及行政罰與刑罰之競合。又現代社會中交通行為與人們有密切不可分的關係,交通行政已經成為國家行政之重要內涵,所以交通行政中有關違規處罰之研究與探討相當重要,本文之探討亦即突顯其重要性,從交通基本權之概念出發,以交通基本權之保障與限制為觀點,針對處罰之重要類型如違規超速、違規停車與酒醉駕車等等,探討其本質並檢驗其在「一行為不二罰」原則下之適用,且評析超載與超速兩法院判決,相關結論據以作為未來修正處罰規定之建議。 This paper makes a distinction between no double sanction principle and Protection against double jeopardy principle in order to discuss their differences or similarities. Generally speaking, the two concepts are often mixed up on the theory and practice of administrative law. Protection against double jeopardy principle, which originates from criminal law, one behavior should not be punished twice or over. However, no double sanction principle indicates that a state is not able to enforce repeatedly the same or similar sanction on people for one behavior. No double sanction principle explicitly prescribed by Administrative Penalty Act, resulting in that no double sanction principle includes the essence of Protection against double jeopardy principle. When it comes to single behavior, it can be divided into single act of nature and single act of law as the foundation to solve all problems according to Taiwan and Germany law . We can extend the discussion of no double sanction principle by distinguishing between Administrative Penalty and The Administrative Execution, and comparing administrative law and criminal law.In modern society, traffic is close to our daily lives. Administrative of traffic has become essence of administration, so it seems to become more important to research violation and penalty of traffic management. This paper on the basis of protection and restriction of the basic right of traffic tries to research common types of traffic violations such as speeding, parking violation and drunk driving, discuss their substance and examine whether they applies to no double sanction principle, and analyze verdicts of speeding and overloading for the purpose of summarizing a conclusion to provide suggestions for amendment. |