您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 47 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation
NO.47 
Date 1955/6/20
Issue In the case where two offenses of larceny committed consecutively by the same individual in two different counties, shall the court in the county where the accused is domiciled have jurisdiction?
Holding
1
    The main purpose of Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to avoid the problems of several courts having jurisdiction over the same case. Based on the petition, having been prosecuted for grand larceny in County X, A later committed larceny in County Y. There is no issue of whether this Article should apply since the public prosecution in County Y was not relevant to the case in County X's court. If the court in County Y is the lexi fori of the defendant, in accordance with Article 5 of the same Code, it may combine and try A's previous, untried criminal act in County X [with the present case]. Once the judgment [in County Y] is affirmed, the court in County X should then issue a dismissal judgment in accordance with Article 294, Section 1, of the same Act.

'Translated and edited by Professor Andy Y. Sun.
 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點