[[alternative]]A study on the democratic control of the deferred prosecution system

碩士[[abstract]]國家係以永續存在、發展為其主要目的，且一切行為均須財源的支應。於現今政府財政規模之擴大，國家扮演的角色日益加重，故對於財政收入、管理、營運與支出作用上即須有法律之基礎，因此預算便因應而生。政府於每年度所提出的預算，乃未來重要活動的安排，故須透過以直接選舉產生的代議民主機制為代表所組成的議會，對於整體國政進行決定、管理以及監督，以合乎「財政民主主義」此一憲法原則。 然而近年來各種財政收入手段日益增加，國家之財源亦日趨複雜化、多樣化，但在諸多財政收支作用中，除租稅作用外，其他部分仍欠缺法學之研究，如本文所欲探究之緩起訴處分制度中緩起訴處分金撥付方式即為一例。 經由本文整理自2002年2月8日增訂緩起訴處分制度以來，現行緩起訴處分金之運用現況，以及蒐集相關資料發現，此一制度於運作上，容有諸多弊端，故在此欲提出建議之改革方案，以求合乎「財政民主主義」之精神外，亦符設置緩起訴制度之良法美意。 筆者於本文所提出建議之方案有二：最佳方案為全面上繳國庫。有關改正我國撥付緩起訴處分金制度中，最佳方案乃係流向應歸於統一，即全面上繳國庫，透過代表民意之議會經審核程序後始得撥派之，以確保其流用之正當性。而次佳方案即為強化緩起訴處分金與民意之結合。緩起訴處分金之歸屬，應全面回歸上繳國庫此統一之途徑，透過議會經審議之程序後始得動支乃屬當然。惟若為追求兼具刑事訴訟制度上之特別預防等目的，次佳方案似可創設一具民意之監督機制加以運用。亦即透過各地方政府、議會等具民意基礎之機構，推薦幾名專家學者組成緩起訴處分金查核小組，確保檢察機關在緩起訴處分金撥派、運用上符合目的性、正當性，提升其透明能見度，發揮緩起訴處分金之最大效用並合乎其立法宗旨。[[abstract]]It is the purpose of a nation to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, all governmental decisions should be supported with sufficient financial resources. The role of the government increases as public expenditure expands. Hence, there is an emergent need for a comprehensive normative structure to regulate governmental financial income, management, operation and expenditure. The budgetary legal system should provide a legal basis for the government’s financial activities and ensure that all governmental income taken from the people is used for the people. In order to comply with the constitutional principle of democratic governance of public finance, all government income and expenditure must be reviewed and approved by a parliament composed of representatives elected directly by the people. However, as the means for government to acquire financial income have become more diversified, legal research regarding financial resources other than taxes and levies is lacking. The subscribed fine of deferred prosecutions is one of the financial resources that has not received enough academic attention. In February 8, 2002, the deferred prosecution system was amended into the Criminal Prosecution Law in Taiwan. After scrutinizing academic research, communiques of the Legislative Yuan, and reports from relevant agencies, I discovered that there are many deficiencies and malpractices within the operation of the system. I propose some recommendations to make the operation of the system comply with the principle of democratic governance of finance and to fulfill the legislative intent of the deferred prosecution system. In this paper I offer two proposals for reforming the subscribed fine of deferred prosecutions system: The best solution is to turn over all fines to the state treasury completely. Therefore, the income can be appropriated through a representative assembly in accordance with budgetary approval procedures, ensuring the legitimacy of its use. The second best solution is to enhance the linkage between the Subscribed Fine of Deferred Prosecution and the General Public’s Oversight. I propose that a supervisory committee be formed as a middle course. Local governments and congress should have the right to recommend experts or scholars to become members of the committee. Through this method, we can enhance the democratic legitimacy of the committee and preserve the functions purported by the legislative intent when enacting the amendment. I believe this method can ensure that prosecutors determine the use of subscribed fines appropriately with democratic legitimacy. This can further enhance the transparency of the system and maximize its utility. The legislative intent of the deferred prosecution system can thus be fulfilled.[[tableofcontents]]第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究方法與限制 4 第三節 研究流程與架構 5 第二章 鳥瞰我國預算法制度與原理 9 第一節 預算之定義與分類 9 第二節 預算之基本原則與法律性質 16 第三節 預算之效力 23 第四節 預算籌編之內容與流程 25 第五節 預算之審議程序及界限 33 第六節 預算之執行與監督 40 第三章 我國緩起訴處分金制度之運作 47 第一節 緩起訴制度之立法沿革及目的 47 第二節 緩起訴制度之定性及內涵 50 第三節 緩起訴制度優缺之評述 64 第四節 我國緩起訴處分金之運作現況 69 第四章 我國緩起訴處分金法制運行上之缺失 83 第一節 概論 83 第二節 檢察官於權力分立原則下之定位及緩起訴處分之法律性質 90 第三節 現行制度下緩起訴處分金運行上之缺失 105 第五章 緩起訴處分金與財政民主主義之衝突與調和 113 第一節 財政民主主義之憲法基本原則要求 113 第二節 建議改革之方案 120 第六章 結論 125 第一節 研究結論與探討 125 第二節 未來修正與建議 127 參考文獻 129 圖3-1歷年檢察官指定支付緩起訴處分金之金額統計圖 77 圖3-2緩起訴處分金配置比例圖 78 圖3-3緩起訴處分金指定支付各公益團體之比例圖 80 表2-1中央政府年度總預算案編審程序表 31 表3-1歷年緩起訴處分件數與人數占全部終結案件之比例對照表 75 表3-2緩起訴處分金指定支付對象金額及百分比統計表 78[[note]]學號: 600640154, 學年度: 10