專題論文
Thesis

專題論文
Thesis

  1. 標題
  2. 中文關鍵字
  3. 中文摘要
  4. 英文關鍵字
  5. 英文摘要
  6. 目次
  7. 參考文獻

外國羈押期間折抵的類推適用 －評析最高法院109年度台抗字第1082號裁定
To Apply Foreign Detention Jail Credit by Analogy: Comment on Ruling No. 1082 of the Supreme Court in 2020
全文下載 點閱率：1033下載次數：34

編著譯者
朱祐頤
出版日期
刊登出處
71
授權者
ISSN
1561-6312
地址
台北市士林區華岡路55號大賢館
電話
02-2861-0511
關鍵字
類推適用；刑期折抵；刑事司法互助；移交受刑人；一事不再理
中文摘要
我國對於外國所為的羈押期間可否折抵，實務見解以往採取「二分 模式」，將羈押分為「受我國司法互助請求所為羈押」以及「非受我國 司法互助請求所為羈押」的兩種情形，並且就前者認為是我國司法權行 使的延伸，將外國羈押以視同的方式，擬制為我國所為的羈押，直接 適用刑法第 37 條之 2，但對於非受司法互助請求所為的羈押，則是無 任何折抵的方式，而在最高法院近期的裁定之中，不同以往，提出應 類推適用刑法第 37 條之 2 及跨國移交受刑人法第 10 條的規定，並且引 用聯合國反腐敗公約以及刑事司法互助的法理，但本文認為實務見解 在理由與結論上有互相矛盾的嫌疑，雖然類推適用移交法的結論是正 確的，但是說理並不正確，並且在結論上不應以類推適用刑法第 37 條 之 2 進行折抵，在參考德國刑法的規定，以及不同審判權間折抵的性 質，應以類推適用刑法第 9 條的方式，並類推適用跨國移交受刑人法 第 10 條作為規範的補充。
英文關鍵字
Analogy Principle, Jail Credit, Mutual Legal Assistance, Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Non Bis in Idem
英文摘要
The practical opinion of the courts had adopted the dichotomy mode towards the issue of whether the period of detention in the foreign countries can be jail-credited or not, the adjudicates of detention in the foreign countries had been divided into “requested by the mutual legal assistance made by Taiwan” ones and “non-requested by the mutual legal assistance made by Taiwan” ones. The former ones have been considered as the extension of the exercise of the judicial right of Taiwan, videlicet, the detention in the foreign countries would be constructed to the detention in Taiwan and would apply to Article 37-2 of the Criminal Code. Per contra, the detentions non-requested by the mutual Legal Assistance made by Taiwan could only jail-credit nothing. However, the Supreme Court has recently made an innovate ruling (Ruling No.1082 of the Supreme Court in 2020). The ruling mentioned that the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan should apply Article 37-2 of the Criminal Code and Article 10 of the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act analogously, it also cited the convention against Corruption of the United Nation and the principals of mutual legal assistance in criminal-matters. However, this study finds the reason and the conclusion of the ruling conflict. Although the conclusion of applying the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan analogously to the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act is reasonable, the reasons are not. The conclusion of applying the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan to Article 37-2 of Criminal Code analogously isn’t ideal, either. According to Strafgesetzbuch (the German penal code) and concerning the jurisdictions are varied, the detention should be generally applied to Article 9 of the Criminal Code by analogy and should be applied analogously to Article 10 of the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act as a supplement.
目次
壹、前言 貳、外國羈押期間之實務簡述 一、實務概況－以司法互助作為二分標準 二、實務上錯誤的法學方法 參、最高法院 109 年度台抗字第 1082 號裁定 一、裁定內容 二、判決評析 肆、外國羈押期間折抵之類推適用 一、刑法第 9 條之折抵 二、跨國移交受刑人法之折抵 三、修法前的法律適用 伍、修法方向建議 一、德國法制之參考 二、修法建議 陸、結論