● 中文摘要：

　　本文之研究目的在尋求法官量刑上的客觀以及穩定，透過整理刑法學領域中關於量刑理論的我國以及日本學說，理解法院為量刑時所須考量的事項。並且從龐大的司法判決資料中，嘗試探求能使法院個案量刑穩定的依據理路。 由於本文涉及施用毒品犯罪，也同時整理相關毒品防制及處罰文獻，尚整理我國臺灣士林地方法院關於施用第一級毒品罪的刑事判決，並紀錄判決中的刑度以及量刑理由，藉統計學方法加以研究。本文首先，先整理學說上關於刑罰、刑罰裁量以及責任刑的基礎理論，再檢視法院量刑的步驟，從中研究關於量刑情事如何限縮法院裁量之範圍。進而，探究法官為量刑時的說明理由義務依據，並嘗試解讀說明義務以及量刑的慣行刑度之關係。然後，觀察毒品防制的制度，探討關於施用毒品罪之特殊量刑事由，並使用統計學方法，嘗試以建立迴歸模型方式，期待比對出現在的個案與過去案件的量刑差異。最後將新個案的判決適用迴歸模型，用以判斷法院是否善盡量刑說明義務，並以此檢驗方法作為本文結論。

● English Abstract:

     The purpose of this paper is to pursue the objectivity and stability of the Court's sentences. The issues of the Court’s concerns will be analyzed with the sentencing theory and the criminal doctrine in Japan which this paper sorted and organized. Furthermore, this paper intends to induce from judicial decision data stable principles of sentence for judges to follow in each case. This paper encompasses the drug abuse offense, collections of studies and records on drug prevention and punishment, and criminal judgments on the first-degree drug abuse offenses delivered by Taiwan Shihlin District Court, in which the discretion on punishment and the reasons for sentencing are included. Statistical methods is adopted in the investigation of this paper. In the beginning of this paper, the doctrine of the basic theory of penalty、penalty discretion, punishment of responsibility is introduced, and then the steps the Court took in reasoning the discretion of sentence is examined, for the purpose to research how sentencing reasons narrow the Court’s scope of discretion. Secondly, this paper investigates the basis of judges’ obligation to give reasons, and analyzes the relationship of judges’ obligation to give reasons and customary extent of sentence. Third, the observation on the system of drug controlling, and exploration of the special sentencing matters of drug offenses are carried out. This paper creates a regression model with statistical methods, which is expected to compare the differences between the sentencing of current and previous cases. Finally, the regression model is applied to the sentences of new cases to examine whether the Court fulfills the obligation to give reasons. The aforesaid test method is the conclusion of this paper.

● 文章連結：

http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/92559915476469551872

● 資料來源：

臺灣博碩士知識加值系統