輔仁法學第45期

在重大刑事犯罪，車禍事故或是醫療過失案件中，對於死者死因的研判或是對傷者傷勢的鑑定，不但在刑事訴訟證據方法中扮演重要角色，也是司法實務者作出公平、公正之裁判不可或缺的關鍵。因而，法醫鑑定、臨床鑑定、生化鑑定或病理鑑定等鑑定報告，往往成為犯罪事實認定的重要基礎或關鍵資訊，更是檢察官或法官用以判斷被告有無過失或應否負刑事責任的重要參考依據。
儘管法醫鑑定制度是刑事偵查程序中最重要之一環。然而我國刑事訴訟法上有關檢驗屍體或解剖屍體制度之研究，卻不受重視。例如法醫人才缺乏，大學醫學院不重視法醫學之研究，司法實務上長期仰賴沒有醫師資格的檢驗員擔任相驗屍體工作。再者，我國的死亡管理制度上，為了便利民眾之需要，對於非醫療院所內死亡的病死之人，允許由衛生所特約醫師進行行政相驗工作，因而常出現不肖醫師與殯葬業者結合而隨意開立死亡證明書之情形。此種現象不僅形成我國死亡管理制度上的漏洞，也成為防治犯罪的死角。
本論文的論述重點，主要針對德國與臺灣刑事訴訟法上有關屍體通報、檢驗屍體與解剖屍體等制度進行比較研究，並進一步地檢討我國法醫鑑定、相驗屍體與解剖屍體制度之缺失。

關鍵字：相驗、解剖、死亡證明書、法醫學、死亡原因、死亡方式、自然死

Among serious criminal offenses, car accidents and medical malpractice cases, the judgment of causes of deaths and investigation of the level of injury play an important role in providing evidences for criminal prosecution, as well as the key for judicial practitioners to make a just and fair verdict. Forensic, clinical, biochemical, or pathological investigation reports are important foundation or key information for recognition of criminal facts, and serve as key references for prosecutors and judges to determine the offenses or legal responsibilities of plaintiffs.
Despite of the fact that forensic examination system plays a crucial role in criminal investigation processes, little attention is paid on the research of necropsy and autopsy system in the Criminal Code in Taiwan. There are few relevant literatures on this topic, and even general text books concerning the Criminal Code tend to neglect this topic. In addition, the extended problems of the lack of legal medical experts have existed in Taiwan for a long time. Medical schools pay little emphasis on the research of forensic medical science, and judicial practitioners have long relied on examiners without medical qualification to conduct necropsy-relevant work. Moreover, in the death medical system in Taiwan, for the convenience of the deceased’s families, those who died outside of medical institutions are examined by appointed doctors of public health centers for administrative procedures. This results in the collusion between immoral doctors and morticians to issue death certificates freely, thus leading to flaws in the death medical management system, and blind spots in crime prevention. The above problems and flaws in relation to death examination and death management are resulted from the lack of forensic experts, as well as the neglect of forensic examination system and equipment of autopsy in Taiwan.
This study attempts to compare the similarities and differences between the procedures of necropsy and autopsy in the Criminal Code in Taiwan and Germany, and further analyzes the supervision of necropsy, corpse report and autopsy in German laws, in order to discuss the flaws the legal system of Taiwan and propose related suggestions.

Keywords: Necropsy, Autopsy, Forensic Medicine, Death Certificate, Cause of Death, Manner of Death, Natural Death

目 次
壹、前言
貳、刑法上公務員的概念
一、2005年刑法修正前
二、2005年刑法修正後
（一）身分公務員
（二）授權公務員
（三）委託公務員
三、修法未決的疑慮
參、受賄行為的型態及處罰規範
一、受賄行為的型態
（一）受賄行為的基本型態
（二）受賄行為的特殊型態
二、受賄犯罪的處罰
肆、杜絕受賄犯罪的立法建議
一、立法規範回歸普通刑法
二、修正規範內容的不明確
三、避免過度重視刑罰威嚇
四、妥善運用財產來源不明罪
伍、結語

本文研究準強盜罪，與強盜罪相比擬，其罪質相似，卻不相同。以法律效果來看，準強盜罪並非強盜罪，為何卻賦予相同之法律效果？司法實務的見解，其關鍵點：在於本罪的強暴、脅迫行為，是否已達到如同強盜罪的手段一般，使人難以抗拒為必要。
實務的一致見解認為：準強盜罪所實行的強暴、脅迫行為，如果未達到至使不能抗拒的程度，將會使得竊盜或搶奪後，所施用的暴力行為若是危險侵害程度低，當成高危險實害程度的強盜行為，卻因其不同的情節行為，仍要承受相同的法定刑，有違罪刑均衡原則。
關於這一點，該法條已經對於目的性的強暴、脅迫行為的不法態樣，以「當場」作為時空上的限縮，本無爭論。但是，由於目的性行為若屬主觀的不法行為，在認定上很難區別主、客觀情形，確實在事實認定上有困難，造成實務上很大的難題。
司法院釋字第630號解釋明確表示：準強盜罪的強制手段，須客觀上足以使人難以抗拒的程度，認為本罪與強盜罪只是因果歷程的顛倒，兩罪法益侵害相當，本罪並無違反平等原則，固然解決了本罪暴行之程度與須強盜罪必須等量齊觀。然而，該號解釋似乎仍未對本罪所擬制的基礎及犯罪類型做出明確的界定，合憲性的爭議仍不斷發生。同時，本罪之著手以及既、未遂的判斷標準，也並未因該號解釋而獲得解決，爭議仍不斷發生。故而，本文試圖透過法解釋論，還原該犯罪類型之立法原貌，以符合罪刑法定原則。

關鍵字：強盜罪、準強盜罪、目的犯、未遂犯、法解釋論

The constitutive requirements of the offence of robbery and those of quasi-robbery are different. Though distinct in essence, these two crimes are intended by law-makers to exert the same legal effects on offenders. Why? The key rests on whether or not the acts of threat and violence launched by offenders of quasi-robbery have reached the degree of rendering resistance impossible.
In the legal practice field, many experts have held that it would profoundly contradict both the principle of equality, as well as that of accountability, if offenders of quasi-robbery, whose acts of physical violence were only triggered and have a lower degree of danger in nature, were made liable to the severe punishments meant for felons. It has made big-trouble in the judicial system.
Theoretically, in Article 329 of the Criminal Code, the law-makers have enumerated fixed patterns of use of force, thus leaving no room of confusion in application. However,since purpose-oriented behavior is totally subjective, and since in practice, it is difficult for law enforcers to determine the motive of the offenders.
In Constitutional Interpretation No. 630, the honorable justices officially stipulated that the physical force launched by offenders must have reached the extent of rendering resistance impossible before they could be convicted of quasi-robbery. After the interpretation, the general view in the academic circle acknowledges the crime as a consequential offense. Based on the forgoing explanations, it is the author's argument that the attempted form of quasi-robbery should be judged and determined based on the acts of physical violence that follows, instead of the larceny that precede, the use of threat or violence. This article will like to discuss this issues ，how to interpretation in criminal law.

Keywords: Robbery, Quasi-Robbery, Purpose of Intention Behavior, The Criminal Act of no Finishing about Offence, Interpretation in Criminal Law

目 次
壹、前言
貳、準強盜罪立法例之比較
一、我國立法例
二、德國立法例
（一）準強盜罪定位為「強盜式的竊盜」
（二）準強盜罪之構成要件
（三）準強盜罪之既、未遂
三、日本立法例
（一）準強盜罪性質的爭論
（二）身分犯與結合犯的爭論與準強盜罪之既、未遂
（三）準強盜罪之既、未遂，在學說上見解分歧
四、小結
參、爭點之所在
一、學說見解
（一）本罪之竊盜、搶奪於構成要件中的性質
（二）本罪之著手時點
（三）本罪之既、未遂標準
（四）本罪之暴行
（五）本罪之目的犯
二、實務看法
（一）本罪的著手
（二）本罪的既、未遂的標準
（三）本罪之強脅行為，司法實務的見解
三、小結
肆、未遂犯之成立要件
一、未遂犯的處罰其理論基礎
二、未遂犯的基本概念
三、未遂犯之成立要件
四、著手實行的認定標準
五、實行行為之未遂與完成
伍、準強盜罪之構成要件
一、行為主體
（一）行為主體為一般犯或是特別犯
（二）學理與實務見解
（三）本文見解
二、實行行為
（一）為防護贓物而拒絕返還取得的財物，當場施予強脅
（二）為脫免逮捕，當場施以強暴脅迫
（三）為湮滅罪證，當場施以強暴脅迫
三、行為客體
四、結果要素
五、特殊行為情況
陸、準強盜罪之未遂
一、本罪未遂犯的法解釋論
二、本罪既、未遂取決的標準
三、本罪之竊盜或強奪，與目的性強脅行為，並非互為因果
柒、結論

隨著社會變遷，社會分工之下的各種人類活動走向專業化，並且逐漸發展成為認證制度，以證照證明專業能力。醫師就是最明顯的例子。1975年醫師法施行後，必須通過醫師考試，請領醫師證書，方得充任醫師。換言之，未通過醫師考試，或未取得醫師證書者，不得行醫；若擅自執行醫療業務，構成醫師法第28條的密醫罪。不過，為符合社會實際需求，醫師法第28條但書有無照行醫例外容許的規定，例如醫療院所內，受醫師指導的實習醫生、受醫師指示的護理人員；偏遠地區的急迫情形，醫師通訊診察並囑護理人員治療；或如臨時急迫的急救行為。最後，本文對於無照行醫的規範，提出些許建議，以期周全。

關鍵字：密醫、社會分工、社會變遷、無照行醫、醫師認證制度

In Taiwan social change, the division of labor is trending specialization. In this time, someone’s license (or certificate) is shown as proof of someone’s specialized ability. The doctor who have license is the most obvious example. After 1975, Taiwan Physicians Act Article 1: citizens “having passed a physician exam and holding a physician license in accordance with This Law may work as a physician.” In other words, people did not pass a physician exam or hold a physician license cannot work as a physician. “Fake Doctors” perform medical acts is criminal in Taiwan Physicians Act Article 28. However, people don’t have a physician license can perform medical acts on certain conditions. This is for social needs, Taiwan Physicians Act Article 28 proviso: students or graduates of medical colleges or universities serving an internship in a medical organization approved by the competent central authority under the supervision of a physician; nursing, obstetrics or other medical personnel in a medical organization under the supervision of a physician; meeting the conditions of the proviso in Article 11, Item 1; giving emergency assistance. Finally, I would like to amend the law views about Taiwan Physician Law Article 28.

Keywords: Fake Doctors, Social Division of Labor, Social Change, Illegal Medicine Practice,the Physician Certification System

目 次
壹、前言
貳、社會分工與醫療專業
一、醫療專業分工
二、醫師認證制度
（一）醫師考試
（二）醫師證照
參、無照行醫的禁止或容許
一、原則禁止
二、例外容許
（一）傳承專業的實習
（二）護理人員的分工
（三）臨時急迫的危難
肆、無照行醫規範的立法建議
一、密醫罪刑罰合理化
二、限制實習醫師年限
三、明確醫療分工功能
四、刪除臨時急救條款
伍、結語

我國於2003年修正民事訴訟法時，於第67條之1增訂法院得依職權通知法律上利害關係第三人之規定。法院通知後具有輔助參加利益之第三人不參加訴訟，立法者認為於其與被輔助之當事人之間可發生參加效，如此之效力為舊法所無。此種情形於他造當事人與受通知之第三人間可否發生既判力與爭點效，於學說上則產生重大之爭論。2003年新法修正後，第63條第1項本文之規定，其究僅係參加人與被輔助當事人間發生參加效之根據規定，抑或可進一步作為他造當事人與參加人之間發生既判力與爭點效之根據規定，亦有其疑問之處。與67條之1法院職權通知之規定相配合，立法者尚於第57條之1以下增訂第三人撤銷訴訟程序，以供法律上利害關係第三人因不可歸責於己之事由未參加訴訟，致不能提出足以影響判決結果之攻擊或防禦方法之情形，得以兩造為共同被告對該確定之終局判決提起撤銷之訴，請求撤銷對其不利之部分。關於此項確定判決後救濟程序之增訂與訴訟參加、訴訟告知、法院職權通知，及再審之訴之關係如何，其原告、被告適格及其判決之效力之決定是否妥適，凡此均有作更深入研究之必要。基此，本文從比較法之觀點先探討訴訟參加、訴訟告知與法院職權通知相關之問題，其次再研究第三人撤銷訴訟程序之相關議題。本文之目的乃在釐清訴訟參加、訴訟告知與法院職權通知之要件與效力，及其與既判力及爭點效之關係，並確立確定判決前參加方面之聽審請求權保障規範及聽審請求權受侵害之確定判決後救濟程序。

關鍵字：訴訟參加、訴訟告知、法院職權通知、既判力、第三人撤銷訴訟程序

The written notice of court hearing has been added in 2003 in article 67-1 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. If the third person doesn’t attend the proceedings after the notice, the legislator regulates the effect of the intervention between the supported party and the noticed third person. Furthermore, this amendment raises the following important academic issues, whether res judicata and issue preclusion after the notice by court can occur between the another party and the intervener and whether article 63 can be regarded as a fundamental provision of above effect. The new proceeding, Third-Person Opposition Proceeding, is in the Innovation of 2003 introduced into the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. In cases where a third person who is legally interested in an action and didn’t attend the proceedings due to reasons not imputable to himself , such third person may bring an opposition action against that final and binding judgment to seek the revocation of the portion of such judgment prejudicial to him. It is necessary to make the detailed study, whether the standings of plaintiff and defendant in the third person opposition proceedings are adequate. The aim of the essay is to clarify the requirements and effects of intervention, notice of action, notice of court hearing and the relation between them and res judicata as well as issue preclusion and further to establish the provision of notice of court, which protects the third person’s right to a court hearing, and the proper remedial procedure against the infringement of the above right.

Keywords: Intervention, Notice of Action , Notice of Court Hearing, Res Judicata, Third-Person Opposition Proceeding

目 次
壹、前言
貳、訴訟參加
一、輔助參加
（一）輔助參加之理由─具有法律上之利益
（二）輔助參加人之法律地位
（三）參加效
二、共同訴訟輔助參加
（一）意義
（二）共同訴訟輔助參加之前提要件
（三）共同訴訟輔助參加人之法律地位
（四）參加效與既判力
參、訴訟告知與法院之職權通知
一、訴訟告知
（一）訴訟告知之前提要件
（二）訴訟告知之效力
二、法院之職權通知
（一）我國新法第67條之1之法院得依職權通知規定
（二）實務見解
（三）學說見解
（四）本文見解
三、確定判決前訴訟參與方面聽審請求權保障規範之明確化與完整化─法院應通知一般性規定之增訂
（以上登載於本期；以下登載於次期）
肆、第三人撤銷訴訟程序
一、我國第三人撤銷訴訟程序
（一）第三人撤銷訴訟之立法目的、要件及效力
（二）我國學說上對於第三人撤銷訴訟程序之評價
（三）實務見解
二、德國民事訴訟法上第三人參加方面聽審請求權受侵害之事後救濟程序
（一）於侵害參加方面聽審請求權之情形得提起再審之訴或聽審之異議
（二）受既判力擴張之人始得因侵害其參加方面聽審請求權提起再審之訴或聽審之異議
（三）得提起再審之訴或聽審異議之主體不限於曾參與訴訟之當事人或參加人
三、法國第三人撤銷訴訟程序
四、對我國第三人撤銷訴訟程序之淺見
伍、結論

我國的信託基金可分為證券投資信託基金、期貨信託基金、不動產投資信託基金及共同信託基金，類似商品另有集合管理帳戶，此等皆屬於商業信託的範疇，已成為國人喜愛的金融商品。本文主要探討個人投資者投資信託基金時，可能產生的相關課稅問題，試圖將信託基金管理法令、稅法規範和主管機關函釋，作一結合，進行討論。並針對國內實務發生之案件，作一探討。此外，亦參考美國共同基金（mutual funds）之立法例。
以下是本文主要探討的課題：第一，探討信託基金的配息，對基金受益人課徵所得稅之問題；第二，討論信託基金申購與贖回之差價是否課徵所得稅之問題；第三，分析信託基金憑證轉讓，課徵證券交易稅的問題；第四，根據信託基金實際操作情形，課徵證券交易稅及所得稅的問題，並檢討主管機關函釋；第五，信託基金憑證贈與時，課徵贈與稅的問題，並探討信託基金的信託架構，與遺產及贈與稅法規定之衝突；最後，討論信託基金之繼承及課徵遺產稅的問題。

關鍵字：信託基金、信託課稅、所得稅、證券交易稅、贈與稅、遺產稅

In Taiwan, the mutual funds can be classified into securities investment trust funds, futures trust funds, real estate investment trust funds, common trust funds, and the similar financial instruments-collective fund accounts, all belong to business trust.The above-mentioned financial instruments are popular among the individual investors. However, there are some relevant legal issues of taxation when the individual investors invest the mutual funds. The management regulations of the mutual funds, the acts of taxation and the letters of authority are integrated and analyzed in this article. And the article explores the domestic judgments and introduces the legislations of mutual funds in the U.S.A.
First, the article discusses the legal queries of income tax that the beneficiary receives dividends from the mutual funds. Second, to discuss the legal issues of income tax that purchase-price subtracts from redeemed-price to get the profits. Third, the article discusses the issues of securities transaction tax of beneficiary certificate of the mutual funds. Fourth, this paper analyzes the issues of income tax and securities transaction tax of actual transaction. Fifth, the article discusses the trust framework of the mutual funds conflict with the act of estate and gift tax. Finally, the issues of inheritance of the mutual funds are discussed in this paper.

Keywords: Mutual Funds, Trust Taxation, Income Tax, Securities Transaction Tax, Estate Tax, Gift Tax

目 次
壹、前言
貳、信託基金的信託架構及信託課稅理論
一、二方關係的信託基金─委託人VS信託業(受託人)
二、三方關係的信託基金
三、信託導管理論
四、信託實體理論
五、信託財產課稅時點
參、信託基金課徵所得稅及交易稅問題探討
一、信託基金配息法令
二、信託基金配息─課稅主體
三、信託基金配息─課稅客體
四、儲蓄投資特別扣除額
五、信託基金的本金與配息不同人時
六、信託基金申購與贖回之差價─課徵所得稅？
七、信託基金課徵證券交易稅問題探討
八、信託基金操作情形問題探討─證交稅及證所稅
（一）申請買回（收回、受益人終止契約、受益人申請退出）時
（二）當信託基金終止時
（三）小結
肆、信託基金課徵贈與稅及遺產稅問題探討
一、課徵贈與稅的主體
二、課徵贈與稅的客體
三、遺產及贈與稅法第5條之1
（一）二方關係的信託基金─委託人VS信託業（受託人）
（二）三方關係的信託基金
四、遺產及贈與稅法第5條之2
（一）二方關係的信託基金─委託人VS信託業（受託人）
（二）三方關係的信託基金
五、贈與日之信託基金資產價值
六、課徵遺產稅的主體
七、課徵遺產稅的客體
伍、法院實務判決探討
一、最高行政法院98年判字第1424號判決
二、最高行政法院101年判字第243號判決
三、最高行政法院94年判字第01019號判決
陸、結語