● 中文摘要：

　　司法院釋字第 584 號以及司法院釋字第 749 號對於道路交通管理處罰條例第 37 條第 1 項暨第 3 項合憲性審查之結論大不相同，但因釋憲客體不同，其實結果二者已並不互相牴觸。這二號解釋都有共同的特色是皆以曾經或犯特定罪之計程車駕駛人被認定是行政風險犯，並對其預防措施採取不准辦理營業小客車駕駛人執業登記、吊扣其執業登記證、廢止其執業登記以及吊銷其駕駛執照等之行政處分。從預防標準與方法論是否經得起檢驗，許多大法官們仍然有質疑與不同意見。本文認為，曾經或犯特定罪之計程車駕駛人不能一概而論皆具有實質風險且須有客觀科學資料確認之，且應以是否有侵害主觀公權利來作為不容忍風險之界限。面對實質風險時，立法者採取不同行政處分作為預防措施時，他們應該以個案發生決定是否採取預防措施以及最終採取預防措施的因素、採取預防措施的指導方針、科學發展的審查以及舉證負擔之轉換，來檢視司法院釋字第 584 號合憲性解釋以及釋字第 749 號違憲性解釋之正當性。由於立法者對於曾經或犯特定罪之計程車駕駛人採取營業自由的限制或剝奪作為預防手段，自應採取司法較嚴格審查標準，始具妥當性之可言。

● English Abstract：

     The Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 584 and the Judicial Interpretation No. 749 have very different conclusions on the constitutional review of Article 37 1. and 3. of “The Road Traffic Management Punishment Regulation”. However, due to the different objects of constitutional interpretation, the both of results conflict not each other. The both of these Judicial explanations have the common feature that all taxi drivers who have been convicted or who are convicted of particular crimes are considered as administrative risk offenders and the precautionary measures for them are under administrative sanctions: be not allowed to do business registration of motorized passenger car drivers, to repeal it's registration, to revocate driver’s license and others. Many Judicial Judges still have questions and disagreements as to whether preventive standards and methodologies can stand the test of validity. This paper argues that a taxi driver who have been convicted or who are convicted of particular crimes can not be generally considered of substantive risks and must be confirmed by objective scientific informations and should be judged as a risk boarderline of intolerance by wheather infringing upon subjective public rights or not. In the face of substantive risks, when legislators adopt different administrative sanctions as precautionary measures, they should decide on a case-by-case basis whether to take precautionary measures and finally take precautionary measures, guidelines for preventive measures, scrutiny of scientific development and conversion of burden proof, in order to examine the legitimation about the constitutional interpretation of the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 584 and the unconstitutional interpretation of the Judicial Yuan No. 749. Since lawmakers have taken the restriction or deprivation for the liberties of taxi drivers who have been convicted or who are convicted of particular crimes as preventive measures, it is reasonable to assume that the standards of judicial review should be conducted more strictly.

● 文章連結 

https://goo.gl/DM76ik

● 資料來源：

法源法律網