中文摘要:

近年來，家庭暴力案件頻傳，相關的新聞總是會出現在各大媒體之間，當年「鄧如雯殺夫案」震驚社會，社會開始檢視婦女受暴問題，1998年6月24日公佈施行「家庭暴力防治法」，至此開啟對受暴婦女的保障，也讓社會逐漸正視「家庭暴力」這個問題。而家庭暴力防治法自立法以來，許多法制層面或保護令執行層面之相關問題，也開始被拿出來討論，本文研究目的主要為探討澎湖縣違反保護令罪之裁判原因與對家暴法中有關保護令條文執行上之建議。本研究以現存裁判文件（次級資料）為分析標的，進行量化統計分析，藉由司法院及法源資料庫之裁判搜尋系統，將違反保護令罪之判決，有系統地整理、研讀，從案件背景、行政流程、司法實務的面向指標進行分析。

本研究結果如下：
一、整體分析：研究發現全國各地方法院與澎湖地方法院聲請與核發保護令件數都有每年上升的趨勢，代表有6成以上的人會獲得法院核發保護令，而在核發保護令後，大約有不到二成的加害人會再度違反保護令，最後在民事保護令各核發款項的部分，最高的核發項次為第十四條第一款禁止實施家庭暴力。
二、案件背景：在兩造關係當中以同住一起的配偶或前配偶為最多，且大多仍以女性為被害人，其暴力導因，最多的為因核發保護令報復，其次是口角，最後是生活細故，其他還有像是子女教養、酗酒、精神問題、金錢、離婚、外遇、工作等問題。而從加害人施暴的行為態樣從研究中發現「身體」與「精神」的暴力行為態樣樣次差異不大，當中又以身體上的暴力行為（徒手施暴）及精神暴力行為（言語辱罵）最多。
三、行政流程：檢視所有判決書後發現，如果被害人是在第一時間報警處理的話，警察會到現場處理並逮捕現行犯，並製作筆錄移送地檢署的比例佔4成左右，在社政的部分，僅有少數判決書中有提到社政系統（社工人員）有做協助。
四、司法面向：首先從判決種類來說，簡易判決佔其比例為75%，其二如果有起訴之案件，絕大部分都會判決有罪，其中又分為有期徒刑及拘役，根據資料顯示判決有期徒刑佔37%，拘役則佔63%，且有期徒刑之刑期，大多集中在6個月以內，顯示在澎湖違反保護令罪雖然判決有罪的比例很高，但判決有罪之刑期並不高，大多以拘役判決為主。其三認定被告違反保護令之款項中，以第1款禁止實施家庭暴力最多，佔60%。其四量刑之理由，一般來說，法官量刑之理由會視檢察官起訴之內容、加害人違反保護令的情節輕重、加害人悛悔程度及考量被害人是否願意原諒加害人等，作為量刑刑責之參考，在違反保護令罪判決書中，針對違反保護令罪之量刑理由有下列幾項：「累犯」、「合併其他犯罪行為」、「無悔意」、「未盡孝道」及「缺乏自制力」等。最後是違反保護令罪的犯罪行為距離保護令核發的時間，在6個月內就有將近八成的加害人會再度犯行，所以對於已取得保護令核發的被害人，需要提醒注意其人身安全之外，後續的相關安全計畫也需要做好確認。

綜上，本研究建議如下：
一、持續並加強家庭暴力防治法與保護令的宣導
二、落實加害人及被害人對保護令的認知觀念
三、加強家庭暴力安全網絡之合作
四、專業人力補足
五、應提高第九款、第十款的保護令核發比例
六、加重違反保護令的罰則

英文摘要:

In recent years, more and more domestic violence cases have reported to the official. Relevant news has always appeared on the major media. In that year, "Case of Deng Ruwen who killed her husband" made the general public astonished. Therefore, the whole society began to examine the issue of violence against women. The implementation of the "Domestic Violence Prevention Act" on June 24, 1998 began the protection for the victims of violence. It also enabled the society to face up to the issue of "domestic violence." Since the domestic violence prevention and control law was enacted, many issues related to the legal system or the enforcement level of Protection orders have also begun to be discussed. The purpose of this paper is mainly to discuss the referee's reasons for the crime of violating the order of protection in Penghu county and the suggestions on the Protection order provisions in the domestic violence law. By using Secondary Analysis in quantitative research and adopting the referee search system of the Judicial Court and LawBank, the author of this paper has systematically organized and studied the verdicts of violations of Protection orders, and finally analyzed the background, administrative procedures, and judicial indicators of the case.
　
The results of the study are shown as follows:

1. Overall analysis: The study found that the number of claims and approval orders issued by all courts in the country and the Penghu District Court all over the country have increased every year, indicating that more than 60% of people will receive a Protection order issued by the court. After issuing a Protection order, about 20% of injurers will again violate the Protection order. Lastly, in the portion of the civil Protection order issued, the highest issuance item is Article 14-1 which prohibits domestic violence.
2. Background of the case: Among the two parties, the spouse or former spouse who had lived with them were the most perpetrating offenders the crime and most of the victims were women. The most common cause of violence was revenge for issuing a Protection order, followed by a quarrel and fighting life. There are other issues such as child education, alcoholism, mental problems, money, divorce, affair, and work. From the perspective of the behavior of inflicting violence, it is found that there are no significant differences between the “physical” and “spiritual” forms of violence. Violent behaviors are mostly caused by physical violence (unarmed violence) and mental violence (verbal abuse).
3. Administrative procedures: After reviewing all the judgments, it was discovered that if the victims was alerted at the first time, the police would go to the scene to process and arrest the active offenders, and the proportion of the prosecutors' office for the production of the transcripts was about 40%. In the part of social affairs, only a few judgments showed that the social-political system (social worker) has assistance.
4. Judicial Oriented: First of all, judging from the types of judgments, the proportion of summary judgments is 75%. Second, if there is a case for prosecution, the vast majority will be found guilty. Among them, it is divided into fixed-term imprisonment and criminal detention. According to statistics, it shows that the sentence of imprisonment is 37%, criminal detention is 63%, and the term of imprisonment is mostly concentrated within 6 months. This data shows that although injurers who have violated Protection orders in Penghu county have a high percentage of convicted guilty, the sentences for guilty verdicts are not high, and most of them are based on criminal detention. Third, in the judgment that the defendant violated the Protection order, domestic violence was most frequently violated in violation of the first paragraph, accounting for 60%. Fourth, on the grounds for sentencing, in general, the reasons for judges' sentencing will be determined by the contents of the prosecutors' prosecution, the severity of the infringer's violation of the Protection order, the degree of retribution by the injuring party, and whether the victim is willing to forgive the injurer. Responsibility for reference. In violation of the Protection order conviction, the grounds for sentencing for violation of the Protection order include the following: “recidivism”, “merger with other criminal acts”, “unrepentant”, “unfulfilled filial piety” and “lack of self-control”. In the end, the criminal act of breaching the Protection order was also greatly affected by the time the Protection order was issued. In the six months, nearly 80% of the injurers will commit another crime. Therefore, for the victims who have obtained a Protection order, they need to be reminded of their personal safety, and the subsequent relevant safety plans need to be confirmed.

In summary, its recommendations are as follows:
1. Sustain and strengthen the dissemination of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and Protection order
2. Implement the perceptions of the injuring party and the victim on Protection order
3. Strengthen cooperation in safety networks for domestic violence
4. Complementing professional manpower
5. Increase the ninth and tenth protection orders.
6. Aggravating Penalties for Violation of Protection order by Offenders

資料來源: https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4dx576