中文摘要：

《少年事件處理法》第27條規定，在符合特定條件時，少年法院「應」或「得」以裁定將觸犯刑罰法律之少年移送該管檢察署檢察官，此時案件即由「少年保護事件」轉換為「少年刑事案件」，觸法少年亦會因此承擔遭受刑事追訴與懲罰的風險，上述規範即為學理上所謂的「逆送制度」。初步而言，「逆送制度」似乎與少年司法「保護優先主義」的基本立場—國家在面對觸法少年時，不僅消極地不予以犯罪追訴與懲罰，更應積極地投入資源，以保護、矯正、教育或援助等方式，保障少年之健全自我成長—相互矛盾。因此學說上有認為，「逆送制度」構成了「保護優先主義」的例外。就此，本文好奇的是，倘若「保護優先主義」是正確的主張，那麼「逆送制度」是否為一個合理的制度設計？本文希望以此問題意識為前提，針對我國現行法的「逆送制度」提出立法論與解釋論之建議。
本文首先嘗試確立「保護優先主義」的正當性基礎，隨後整理我國法「逆送制度」之歷史沿革與現行規範現況，並參考比較日本法之實務與學說討論後，分別提出立法論與解釋論建議如下：
第一，《少年事件處理法》第27條1項應予以刪除，在尚未刪除前，同條項第一款之「本刑」應擴張解釋為「法定刑」與「處斷刑」，以盡可能限縮其適用範圍。第二，考量少年司法嚴罰化的可能性，應策略性的保留《少年事件處理法》第27條2項，然而同條項之「刑事處分相當性」之解釋應參照同法第1條目的性規定，因此僅當「刑事處分」是協助少年健全自我成長所必要與有效之手段時，少年法院始得以裁定將少年移送檢察官。第三，「刑事處分相當性」包含「程序法意義」與「實體法意義」兩種類型，前者係指「修復性程序有助於少年健全自我成長」，而後者則是指「少年有期徒刑（＝長期之感化教育）有助於少年健全自我成長」。第四，《少年事件處理法》第67條與第74條作為「逆送制度」的補正措施，應刪除「最輕本刑」之要件限制，以擴大遭逆送之少年重回「少年保護事件」之可能性。

英文摘要：

As prescribed by Article 27 of the Juvenile Justice Law, as known as “Waiver” , under specific conditions, juvenile court “shall” or “may” transfer the juvenile who violated criminal law to a prosecutor in the prosecutors’ office. Once the juvenile is tranfered by court, the procedure will change from “juvenile protection process” to “juvenile criminal process”. Meanwhile, the juvinile will be placed at the risk of criminal punishment. Howerve, this provision seemed to be contradictory to a fundamental rule of juvenile justice which requires country to undertake appropriate measures which can eusure the right of “self-developement” of the juveniles, no mater the juveniles have commited a crime or not. This article calls this rule as “The principle of priority of protection”. Therefor, the main goal of this article is to examine whether the “Waiver” can be compatible with overalling juvenile justice system?
At first, the principle of priority of protection will be justified. After that, this article will reorganize the historical evolution and present standard of “Waiver” in Taiwan law. Consequently, this article will introduce and examines the pratical and theorical discussion of Japan law. On the basis of comparative study between Taiwan law and Japan law, this article suggests that: (1) the Article 27, Paragraph 1 of Juvenile Justice Law shall be deleted, or at least minimized the application of this provision. (2) the interpretation of the Article 27, Paragraph 2 of Juvenile Justice Law shall conform to the Article 1 of Juvenile Justice Law. (3) The court may applies the “Waiver”, if and only if the criminal procedure or criminal punishment can ensure the right of self-development of the juveniles who commited crime. (4) In order to expand the possibility to re-tansfer the juveniles back to “juvenile protection process”, the condition of misdemeanor in the Article 67 and 74 of Juvenile Justice Law shall be deleted.

文章連結：

https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0001-1908202010271300&sourceBrowseType=F

資料來源：

華藝線上圖書館