中文摘要

金融法律一再將刑事責任提高，部分規定已與刑法之殺人或重傷罪等相當。然由於法律規定構成要件過於簡略抽象，刑事責任又嚴峻，行政監理與司法實務爭議亦多，以致定罪率不高，但企業與金融界經營者卻動輒涉及違犯，常陷於司法程序惡性循環之困境，使人人自危，不敢勇於任事。對於重大金融犯罪明文自首及偵查中自白應減輕或免除其刑，有其歷史背景與積極功能，若能配合緩起訴制度之適用，定可適度鼓勵犯罪者自新、填補損害之擴大，並可消弭重大金融犯罪漫長司法程序之耗費，惟現行司法機關實務見解受限於早期總則減輕與分則減輕區分之刻板觀念，以致產生適用之爭議，本文以此為題，就現行以法律明文外解釋之要件來拘束及阻礙緩起訴制度之適用，提出探討與建議。

English Abstract

Financial law repeatedly increases its criminal responsibilities, which can be equal to those of murder and serious physical injury. Due to the opaqueness in crime elements, seriousness of criminal responsibility and frequent debates in administrative and judicial practices, the conviction rates are low. Yet, business operators may easily violate the regulations and find themselves trapped in judicial proceedings, which can deter them from actively engaging in the business. Reducing or removing criminal responsibilities for confession and confession in investigation process has historical backgrounds and active functions. Moreover, together with the applicatiol1 of deferred prosecution, it may encourage the convicted to start with a clean slate, compensate the damages as well as eliminate the cost of prolonged judicial proceedings. However, current judicial practice is restricted by the outdated concept of separating reductions under the general provisions and specific offenses, causing disputes in law application. This article aims at this issue and provides analysis and advice on the obstacles in applying deferred prosecution.

資料來源：

法源法律網

https://goo.gl/3rnK3p