共同正犯為實行犯罪而取得 財產之沒收 —以運輸毒品罪為中心


黃士軒

中文摘要

本文是以為實行犯罪而於事前從共同正犯處收受之財產的沒 收問題為對象,以有關我國運輸毒品罪的最高法院判決為中心, 探討現行法下,這種財物應以如何的法律上根據宣告沒收的問 題。與此有關的財物至少有事前收受的(1)機票與(2)現金。 本文在以下的內容中,將先透過對於我國立法、學說解釋論 的概觀,以及實務狀況的考察,瞭解我國實務目前對於上述兩種 財物所採取的基本態度,以及宣告沒收的範圍,並且明確化應該 進一步探討的理論問題,亦即①前述機票與現金在我國法制中應 依據何種規定沒收的問題,②犯罪物之沒收時,犯罪物與犯罪行 為的直接關係應如何理解始為合理的問題,以及③共同正犯型態 遂行之犯罪的沒收與單獨犯之均衡的問題(貳、),再進一步透過 對於日本刑法與麻藥特例法的相關規定、學說解釋論的概觀,以 及同國最近的重要實務指標判決的考察,瞭解在就上述財物宣告 沒收時,解釋上有哪些可能性(參、),再以此為基礎進一步分析 與檢討可能的解釋方向,指出在是否能盡量妥當且均衡地處理上 述①、②、③的問題之標準下,應以將(1)來程、回程機票均作 為供犯罪所用之物沒收,並將(2)事前交付的現金中,用以支付 必要費用部分作為供犯罪所用之物沒收,其餘部分作為犯罪之所 得沒收(肆、),並於最後簡述本文的考察所得作為結束(伍、)。

 

On Criminal Confiscation of Property received from Co-Principles for Commission of a Crime-Focusing on Crimes concerning Traffic of Narcotics

Shih-Hsuan, Huang

abstract

This article aims to explore the interpretational problem concerning criminal confiscation of Property received from co-principles in advance for commission of a crime. In this situation, flight tickets and cash received often become problems. Firstly, this article surveys the relative provisions, the majority of the theories and the recent judicial practice of Taiwanese Supreme Court, in order to clarify the core of the interpretational problem under the criminal confiscation law. Through this survey, this article makes an induction that (1) the nature of flight tickets and cash received from co-principles in advance, (2) the direct relevance of the object of confiscation and crime itself, and (3) the balance between confiscation in the situation of crime committed by co-principles and the situation of crime committed by single person, are the main problems in Taiwanese judicial practice. Secondly this article takes comparative-law approach and surveys the relative provisions in Japanese penal code, Japanese “Act Concerning Special Provisions for the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, etc. and Other Matters for the Prevention of Activities Encouraging Illicit Conducts and Other Activities Involving Controlled Substances through International Cooperation”, the majority of interpretational theories and judicial practice of Japanese Supreme Court, in order to explore possible interpretational approaches. Thirdly, based on the first and second parts of the article, it examines the possible interpretational approaches and endeavors to find the one with most sufficient reasons.