论《行政处罚法》“同一违法行为”的认定  

On the identification standard of"the same illegal act"in The Administrative Punishment Law

作　　者：黄先雄[1] 高凯 HUANG Xianxiong;GAO Kai(School of Law,Central South University,Changsha 410083,China)

机构地区：[1]中南大学法学院,湖南长沙410083

出　　处：《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第6期71-81,共11页Journal of Central South University：Social Sciences

基　　金：湖南省社会科学基金重点项目“新时代行政执法检察监督基本制度研究”(22ZDB044);湖南省研究生科研创新项目“行政连带责任研究”(CX20230138)。

摘　　要：对《行政处罚法》第29条中“同一违法行为”的认定,实践中存在“构成要件”个数标准与“自然行为”个数标准的分歧。结合《行政处罚法》第29条来看,可以发现“自然行为”标准与“同一违法行为”存在语义冲突、解释标准具有一定恣意性等问题;“构成要件”认定标准存在混淆“评价对象行为数”与“评价结果违法行为数”,且与《行政处罚法》第29条的立法目的相背离等弊端。为此,一方面,可以通过法律解释拓展“同一违法行为”的内涵,使其与“一行为”内涵等同;另一方面,可以引入行为单数理论,将“一行为”的认定转换为行为单数的区分,并明确除法律有规定外,采“自然行为”个数标准认定“一行为”。In the identification of"the same illegal act"in Article 29 of The Administrative Penalty Law,in practice,there are disagreements in the number standard of"constitutive elements"and the number standard of"natural acts".According to Article 29 of The Administrative Penalty Law,it can be found that there are such problems as semantic conflicts between the number standard of"natural act"and"the same illegal act",as well as the standard for interpretation being arbitrary.It can also be found that the number standard of"constitutive elements"confuses"the number of behaviors of evaluation objects"with"the number of illegal behaviors of evaluation results",and deviates from the legislative purpose of Article 29 of The Administrative Penalty Law.Therefore,we can,on the one hand,expand the connotation of"the same illegal act"through legal interpretation to make it equal to the connotation of"one act".On the other hand,we can introduce the theory of singular act,change the identification of"one act"to the distinction of singular act,and clearly stipulate that the number standard of"natural act"is adopted to identify“one act”unless prescribed by law.

关 键 词：同一违法行为 构成要件标准 自然行为标准 行为单数理论 

分 类 号：D912.1[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]