DSpace community: 法學院

賭博罪修法之研究-以現金轉蛋遊戲為例

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 03:11:09 GMT

title: 賭博罪修法之研究-以現金轉蛋遊戲為例 abstract: 本研究探討賭博罪修法之必要性，特別聚焦於現金轉蛋遊戲是否應納入刑法第266條賭博罪之規範範圍。研究背景源於網路遊戲中轉蛋機制的普及及其潛在的賭博性質，例如玩家透過隨機抽取獲得虛擬物品，可能涉及高額金錢交易。研究動機則來自實務案例，如直播主「丁特」控訴遊戲廠商公告機率不實，引發社會對轉蛋遊戲是否構成賭博的爭議。研究方法包括文獻分析法、歸納分析法、歷史研究法及比較分析法，並參考日本、中國大陸等國相關法規。研究發現，現金轉蛋遊戲雖具射倖性，但其與傳統賭博在目的、虛擬財產性質及社會影響上存在差異。刑法第266條第3項「供人暫時娛樂之物」的但書規定，在適用上存在構成要件與違法性判斷的理論爭議，且實務見解尚未統一。結論建議，應明確「供人暫時娛樂之物」的判斷標準，並參考國際規範加強機率透明度，避免過度擴張賭博罪的適用範圍，同時保障消費者權益與遊戲產業發展。 This study examines the necessity of amending gambling offenses, with a focus on whether cash gacha games should be regulated under Article 266 of the Criminal Code. The research background stems from the prevalence of gacha mechanisms in online games and their potential gambling nature, such as players obtaining virtual items through random draws, which may involve high monetary transactions. The motivation arises from practical cases, such as the livestreamer "Dinter" accusing game companies of misleading probability disclosures, sparking debates on whether gacha games constitute gambling. The research methods include literature analysis, inductive analysis, historical research, and comparative analysis, referencing regulations from Japan, China, and other jurisdictions. Findings indicate that while cash gacha games exhibit elements of chance, they differ from traditional gambling in purpose, the nature of virtual property, and social impact. The exemption clause of "items for temporary entertainment" in Article 266, Paragraph 3, raises theoretical disputes over its application in constitutive requirements or justification, with no unified judicial interpretation. The conclusion suggests clarifying the criteria for "items for temporary entertainment," enhancing probability transparency based on international standards, and avoiding overextending the scope of gambling offenses, while balancing consumer protection and industry development.

論我國罷工權之發展與困境 —兼論外國法之比較研究

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:41:45 GMT

title: 論我國罷工權之發展與困境 —兼論外國法之比較研究 abstract: 「罷工」乃係勞工透過暫時拒絕提供勞務之行為，向資方施加壓力，並表達其對工作環境、薪資、福利或其他勞動權益的不滿。隨著工業革命的發展，勞工需求越來越多，各國政府制定許多相關法規外，國際勞工組織亦發布第87號《結社自由及保障組織權利公約》及第98號《組織權及集體協商權公約》作為保障勞工之「結社自由與集體協商」相關權利，而其中就包括罷工權。　　我國對於一般勞工所規定之「罷工」活動展開前，需有一系列之程序需先進行，包括勞資爭議調解、工會發起之罷工投票等等，對此，罷工預告期及禁搭便車條款一直是國內外時常討論之要點。而部分職業欲發起罷工之條件卻更加嚴苛甚至不得罷工，依我國勞資爭議處理法第54條所規定，教師及學校之勞工不得罷工；醫院則勞資雙方須約定必要服務條款才得以罷工；公務人員協會法第46條亦明定公務人員不得參與罷工活動。雖我國近幾年來皆有相關提案，但其中涉及多方面考量，且法規修正與完善並非短時間即可解決，故本文將藉此機會進行探討與研究，並同時參考外國之規範與案例，以期對我國未來制度之修正與完善提供參考。 A “strike” is an action taken by workers to exert pressure on employers by temporarily refusing to provide labor, thereby expressing their dissatisfaction with working conditions, wages, benefits, or other labor rights. With the development of the Industrial Revolution, the demand for labor has been increasing, and governments worldwide have enacted numerous related laws and regulations. The International Labour Organization has also issued the Convention No. 87, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, and the Convention No. 98, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, to protect workers' rights related to “freedom of association and collective bargaining,” which include the right to strike. In Taiwan, a series of procedures must be followed before general workers can initiate a “strike,” including labor-management dispute mediation and union-initiated strike votes. Consequently, the strike notice period and the free-rider clause have been frequently discussed, domestically and internationally. However, the conditions for initiating a strike are even more stringent for certain professions, or even further they are prohibited from striking altogether. According to Article 54 of Taiwan's Labor Dispute Processing Act, teachers and school workers are prohibited from striking; hospitals require labor and management to agree on essential service clauses before a strike can occur. In addition, Article 46 of the Public Servants Association Act explicitly stipulates that public servants cannot participate in strike actions. In recent years, although there have been relevant proposals here, the process involves multiple considerations, and legal revisions and improvements cannot be resolved within a short period. This thesis will hence take the opportunity to explore and research these foregoing issues and by referencing foreign laws and case studies, offer insights for potential legal reforms in Taiwan.

勞動契約的憲法控制─以雇主監督權為核心

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 02:50:29 GMT

title: 勞動契約的憲法控制─以雇主監督權為核心 abstract: 依照勞動契約的特性，勞工在工作時間內有在雇主指揮監督下提供勞務的義務，必須遵守勞動契約所約定的條款，或是恪遵雇主所訂定的工作規則，若勞工不遵守，雇主得以各種法律賦予的手段促使其改善；然而，若企業外的行為，雇主是否仍有這般影響力？在疫情期間，政府為了防止疫情的擴散，宣告了各種措施，雇主為了防止疫情影響經營，也會限制勞工下班時間不得前往疫區，然而，站在基本權利保護的立場下，雇主此等作為是否禁得起檢驗？本文將嘗試以維護人性尊嚴的立場，從保障勞工基本權利的角度出發，討論勞工企業外的行為是否應受到雇主的約束；由於本文涉及以基本權利作為切入點，故本文先以勞動契約的特性及我國勞動法令與憲法的連結出發，接著討論就勞工企業外行為所涉及的基本權利，並嘗試就現行法或現行實務運作中尋找相關的審查密度。待決定審查密度後，本文以横浜ゴム事件為討論的核心，探討日本就雇主對於勞工企業外監督權行使的界限究竟為何，試圖從中尋找與我國相關聯的規定，並借重日本的經驗，協助尋找出雇主在企業外監督權的界限究竟為何。 In accordance with the nature of the labor contract, workers are obligated to be subject to the employer’s direction and supervision during working hours and within the workplace. They must comply with the terms agreed upon in the labor contract or abide by the work rules established by the employer. If the worker fails to comply, the employer may employ various legally authorized means to prompt correction. However, when it comes to conduct outside the enterprise, does the employer still possess such influence? During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government announced various measures to prevent the spread of the virus. Employers, in an effort to protect their business operations, also imposed restrictions preventing workers from visiting high-risk areas during off-hours. However, from the standpoint of protecting fundamental rights, can such employer-imposed measures withstand scrutiny? This article attempts to discuss whether off-duty conduct of workers should be subject to employer restrictions, from the perspective of protecting workers’ fundamental rights and upholding human dignity. Since this discussion involves fundamental rights as a point of departure, the article will first examine the nature of labor contracts and the linkage between Taiwan’s labor laws and the Constitution. It will then explore the fundamental rights implicated in workers’ off-duty conduct and attempt to identify the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny applicable under current law and practice. Upon establishing the level of scrutiny, the article centers its discussion on the Yokohama Rubber Case, analyzing where Japan draws the line regarding an employer’s authority to supervise workers’ conduct outside the enterprise. It also seeks to identify relevant corresponding provisions in Taiwan and draws upon Japan’s experience to help determine the boundaries of an employer’s supervisory power beyond the workplace.

論我國行政法人制度之發展-以文化行政法人為中心

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 04:19:54 GMT

title: 論我國行政法人制度之發展-以文化行政法人為中心 abstract: 我國實施行政法人制度至今(114)年已滿二十年，行政院人事行政總處依據立法院通過行政法人法時之附帶決議，於民國107年完成行政法人成效報告宣示，有關行政法人之成立將不設上限，採個案審查方式。換言之，推動方向更明確，且不限中央政府可以成立，即地方政府，亦紛紛仿效中央成立行政法人，有鑑於此趨勢發展，本研究試著從經濟學觀點，再次探討我國行政法人制度，以瞭解我國行政法人在法令鬆綁後之執行成效。研究發現：一、在人事改革成效方面，所謂達成放寬資格限制，使各方人才得以進入行政法人。實則，並未見其成效。二、財務改革成效方面，主要變動是由現金收付制改為權責制，此二制度最大不同處，是在財產之折舊攤提表現方面，就行政法人之非營利性基調而言，其財產之折舊攤提對於財務運作不具關鍵性。三、在採購改革成效方面，因採購法令限制放寬，生有採購便利、迅速性之效，但同時可能必須以放棄採購之最終目的(物有所值)來交換、同時，放寬法令也可能給予主管人員過度之權限，造成其任意解讀法令，或惡意曲解法令之弊病。凡此，皆因採購法令鬆綁所致。行政法人在採購法令上不分其採購標的是否確有放寬必要，而無差別之鬆綁，如此破壞採購法制之作為，其合理性與必要性皆有疑義，未來必然付出代價。故單純以法令鬆綁所換取到之便利收益，將來必然付出成本，這種改革無改革效益可言。本研究建議，在法令放寬上必須重新檢討，例如，文化類行政法人之屬於藝文產業者，既屬產業且已扶助數十年，理當令其回歸市場機制；而在教育推廣方面，既是教育性質則以使其回歸教育體系為妥適。如此，各體系才能各自正常發揮功能，不應將教育推廣與藝文產業發展混為一談，而造成權責不分之現況，政府一方面主張，改制行政法人要走企業化經營；另方面，卻行妨礙藝文產業企業化發展可能性，這主張與作為豈不矛盾。主管機關應該創造公平、公開市場環境，讓藝文產業有市場機制之自由發展空間。如果政府仍認為藝文產業不適用自由市場機制，而維持現狀繼續推動目前之文化類行政法人。目前至少，就全權負責之文化類行政法人之首長人選，應該採行真正公開甄選機制，並學習英國、日本制度，在其去留上結合有效度評鑑，以公平且客觀之評鑑制度決定去留。同時，監督機關應該有能力訂出一套明確之長期發展目標，據之要求其首長執行。目前行政法人制度已實行近二十年有餘，應該落實檢討政策目的與方向，釐清個別行政法人，需要彈性放寬法令限制之特殊性及放寬標準，在未釐清前，應該思考放緩推動步伐，以免造成國家資源浪費。 It has been 21 years since the establishment of the Non-Departmental Public Bodies(NDPBs) in Taiwan(2025). Since the Executive Yuan's Personnel Administration Office completed the NDPBs effectiveness report in accordance with the Legislative Yuan's supplementary resolution in 2018, it has announced that there will be no upper limit on the establishment of NDPBs, and cases will be reviewed individually. In other words, the direction of promotion is clearer, and it is not limited to the central government. Local governments have also followed the central government in establishing NDPBs .In view of this trend, this study attempts to re-examine Taiwan’s NDPBs system ,from an economic perspective.In order to understand the effectiveness of Taiwan’s NDPBs after the relaxation of laws and regulations.The study found that: 1. In terms of the effectiveness of personnel reform, The policy aimed to relax qualification restrictions to attract diverse talent into NDPBs. However, this goal has not been effectively achieved. 2. In terms of the effectiveness of the financial reform, the primary change was the shift from a cash-based accounting system to an accrual-based system. The key difference between these systems lies in how depreciation is accounted for. However, considering that NDPBs operate on a non-profit basis, depreciation expenses have minimal impact on their financial operations.. 3. In terms of the effectiveness of procurement reform, the relaxation of procurement regulations has led to increased convenience and efficiency in procurement processes. However, this may require giving up the ultimate goal of procurement (value for money) in exchange. Additionally, regulatory relaxation may grant excessive discretion to decision-makers, leading to arbitrary or even malicious interpretations of procurement laws. The indiscriminate relaxation of procurement regulations, regardless of whether such flexibility is truly necessary, undermines the integrity of the procurement system. This raises concerns about the rationality and necessity of such deregulation, which is likely to incur costs in the future. Reforming solely for the sake of convenience, without achieving meaningful improvements, does not constitute an effective reform. Therefore, if we simply exchange convenient benefits for the relaxation of laws and regulations, we will inevitably pay a cost in the future, and such reform will not produce any effective results. Based on these findings, this study suggests that the relaxation of laws and regulations must be reviewed. For example, cultural NDPBs that belong to the arts and cultural industries should be allowed to return to the market mechanism since they are industries that have been supported for decades. In terms of education promotion, since they are educational in nature, it is appropriate to return them to the education system. In this way, each system can run normally, and education promotion and the development of arts and cultural industries should not be confused with each other, and power and responsibility cannot be distinguished. Currently, the government advocates that NDPBs should be restructured into corporate ones; on the other hand, it hinders the possibility of corporatization of the arts and cultural industries. Isn't this a contradiction? The authorities should create a fair and open market environment to allow the arts and cultural industries to have free development space within the market mechanism. If the government still believes that the arts and cultural industry is not suitable for the free market mechanism, If the government insists that these industries should not be subject to market forces and continues supporting cultural NDPBs. At least for now, a truly open selection mechanism should be adopted for the selection of CEOs (artistic directors) of cultural NDPBs with full responsibilities, and the British and Japanese systems should be learned, combining effective evaluation with a fair and objective evaluation system to decide whether to keep or leave. At the same time, the supervisory body should be able to set a clear set of long-term development goals and require the CEO (artistic director) to implement them. The current NDPBs system has been in place for nearly 21 years. It is time for a thorough policy review to clarify the specific needs and standards for regulatory flexibility. Until these issues are fully addressed, the expansion of the system should be approached with caution.