本文以「日本刑事控訴審（第二審）之研究」為主題，嘗試將日本刑事第二審制度為廣泛之介紹，分別自控訴審之審級構造類型、制度沿革、控訴程式、控訴理由、法院審理及裁判等為探討，並試圖探尋日本實務運作經驗及遭遇之難題。 日本刑事第二審（控訴審）於第二次世界大戰後，自「覆審制」改為「事後審制」，其構造係採「嚴格事後審說」見解，即以第一審判決時為控訴審審理之基準時。法定控訴理由則包括訴訟程序違背法令、判決內容錯誤、再審及判決後刑之廢止、變更或大赦等。控訴法院就案件之終結方式，雖有控訴不受理、公訴不受理、撤銷原判決等三類，惟實務運作此等程序時，仍有細微差異。而在運作50餘年後，控訴審卻漸有續審化現象：控訴法院逕為事實調查、9成5以上撤銷案件自為判決、以撤銷自判為原則性運作等，學者認為：日本傳統思想、實務運作習慣、現行條文規定、法院組織構造、訴訟經濟、學說影響以及控訴審濫為自判等等，均可能為續審化之成因。 鑑於日本經驗，我國刑事訴訟第二審倘欲採行「事後審制」，除可參酌日本現行控訴審規定，調整草案內容外，有關審級構造中「事後審制」之原則與例外，第二審法院事實調查之權限以及自行判決之範疇等等，均為修法時應考量之方向。

在共產主義體制下，中國社會各部分皆無法擺脫政治力量的滲透，必須接受人民政府的動員，投入各種政治任務中。作為人民團體之一的基督教界，亦無法免除履行中共政治要求的義務。中共建國之初，即根據對國內外政治局勢，及敵我力量對比的評估，申明打倒「帝國主義」、「封建主義」及「官僚資本主義」等「三大敵人」為首要政治目標，並據此發動全國性政治運動，藉此鞏固政權，樹立其不可挑戰的統治權力。由統治者的觀點出發，與當前須對付的主要矛盾——「三大敵人」有密切聯繫的基督教界，也必須透過向其中的「敵對階級」鬥爭之過程，來適應新中國、新社會的形勢，因此中共在取得政權之初，即對基督教提出切斷與外國勢力的關係，實踐「反帝愛國」任務的要求。為達改造基督教的目標，中共拉攏吳耀宗等認同社會主義道路的基督教人士，配合官方意志而發起「三自」運動，欲將所有更正政教信徒納入政府為其預定的前進軌道。在「反帝愛國」統一戰線範圍中，基督教的發展方向自始即受政治形勢的制約。中共建國之初基督教政策相對較為寬鬆，但韓戰的爆發則催促了革新運動的腳步，朝向激進化發展。在抗美援朝及鎮壓反革命二大運動結合的政治氣氛下，政府大力動員全國人民，針對美帝侵略陰謀罪行，及反革命分子顛覆活動展開控訴運動。對基督教問題而言，政府利用了此一時機，亦針對全國教會發動大規模的群眾控訴運動，要求中國基督徒擺脫並肅清外國勢力在中國教會內的一切影響。在「處理接受美國津貼的基督教團體會議」（又稱「北京會議」）上，政府官員及以吳耀宗為首的三自骨幹人物示範控訴運動的模式，繼而推行至全國各教會團體，全面展開。 在1951年基督教界控訴運動的發展方面，上海為政府眼中「帝國主義」勢力強大的地區，故在控訴運動中首當其衝。從中共意識型態角度而言，中國基督教之本質與「帝國主義文化侵略」無法分割，因而不論是長久以來接受外國津貼的宗派教會，或一向實行三自本土獨立教會團體如靈糧堂、靈工團、及影響力與規模更大之耶穌家庭、上海基督徒聚會處，皆無法免除接受整風改造的命運。在控訴運動推行過程中，多數重要基督教組織在宗教事務處及三自會介入操作下，清除了政治立場、觀點有問題者，使中共黨政得以確立其對各教會團體之領導權。然而仍有包括聚會處在內的本土自立教會，對三自運動持懷疑甚至抗拒態度。再者，許多不滿黨政力量干涉教會事務運作之公會信徒或傳道人，將其宗教信仰活動轉入地下，促使家庭教會勢力迅速增長。這些公開、地下教會組織及「自由傳道人」在1953年以後，逐漸遭受政治力壓迫。在1954年7月下旬第一屆「中國基督教全國會議」於北京召開，正式確立三自運動之名稱，將原先的「革新」改為「愛國」，促使基督徒體認到加入三自的必要性。最後有關當局又藉由1955年「胡風事件」掀起的全國「肅反」運動，將反三自之教會人士以「反革命集團」罪名加以整肅。1955年10月29日，中共正式宣佈凡三自管理範圍外之基督教活動皆為非法，在上海基督徒聚會處進行整風鬥爭，並在其內部進行改組，正式納入三自管轄中。該會的「新生」，可說確立了中共對教會發展方向的主導地位。

環保投資往往造成廠商成本負擔之增加，若缺乏政府管制或經濟誘因，廠商極有可能降低環保方面的投資，導致自然環境的污染及社會外部成本之發生，故透過公共環保政策之適度介入，似乎是不得不存在之必要手段。而本文所欲探討的環保補貼政策，即是存有多元見解及爭議之一種經濟誘因工具。 本文先介紹環保補貼之範圍、定義與各國適用之情形，並採用文獻回顧之方式，整理各學者對政府獎勵企業污染防治措施之爭議，以瞭解環保補貼對環境保護或全球整體經濟的影響。 肯定環保補貼對經濟發展及環境保護有正面的效果之後，接著討論環保補貼與SCM協定中「禁止性補貼」、「可控訴補貼」及「不可控訴補貼」類型間之關係，並探討當「不可控訴補貼」類型所依據之SCM協定相關規定停止適用後目前之定位，同時提出環保補貼於SCM協定下合法規避他國控訴之方式。 本文最後檢驗與分析我國之環保補貼於SCM協定下之適法性，並對我國環保補貼政策未來之發展與方向提出建議。 / The use of subsidies as environmental policy instruments has increased in recent years since firms usually aren’t willing to pay for the expense of pollution prevention and control. Environmental subsidies involving financial support by the government, as an economical incentive approach, are deemed to be important and effective by many researchers. However, it still remains controversial because some researchers argue that government intervention would always result in resources distortion and economic inefficiency. Therefore, this thesis focuses on subsidies with a positive impact on the environment and aims to discuss their utility and compatibility with relevant WTO covered agreements, especially the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measure (the SCM Agreement). The thesis first introduces the definition, scope and practice of environmental subsidies, and, by using literature review, presents several studies on the environmental and economic impact of environmental subsidies. The thesis then discusses the relevant regulations under the SCM Agreement framework and finds that environmental subsidies may be categorized as more than one type, ie non-actionable subsidy, of subsidies under the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, the thesis also analyzes how environmental subsidies can be designed in a way that complies with the SCM Agreement, thus avoiding the risk of being challenged under the WTO by other WTO Members. Finally, the thesis examines various types of environmental subsidies provided by Taiwanese government to understand whether they are consistent with the regulations of the SCM Agreement. Suggestions based on this research are put forward at the end of the thesis.

文化是一種民族精神、社會價值、生命哲學與生活方式的體現，而創意是人類文化定位的重要成份，而以各式各樣的形式表現，兩者皆能透過產業流程與全球分銷去複製、推廣。文創產業是「那些以無形、文化為本質的內容，經過創造、生產與商品化結合的產業」，因此文創產業不僅涉及文化與創意，也包含由創意衍生之「文化商品及服務」（cultural goods and services）的經濟價值與商業運作。 我國為使發展文創產業之政策制度在施行上於法有據，經濟部乃多次召集會議邀請各部會及學者專家討論研擬《文化創意產業發展法》（以下簡稱《文創法》），並於92年9月24日函報行政院審核修訂，經過多年的推動與研議，該法終於2010年1月7日三讀通過，完成立法程序，並於2月3日以華總一義字第09900022451號總統令制定公布，相關子法亦陸續公布施行。 然而《文創法》內立意甚佳的產業措施，因台灣加入世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)而不得不受到WTO相關協定的規範。作為掃除關稅與非關稅貿易障礙、確保自由貿易之WTO，經由多回合的貿易談判逐步開放市場，並藉由對關稅與補貼之約束以及服務業市場准入、國民待遇之承諾等建立市場開放之可預測性。文化商品與服務在其規範下並無例外，同樣必須接受WTO上述原則，即最惠國待遇、國民待遇與市場准入等義務的檢驗。鑑於《文化創意產業發展法》所具備產業扶植之本質，及其涵蓋之16種文化創意產業多屬服務部門，本文遂將檢驗重點聚焦在該法之獎補助及租稅優惠措施與GATS的互動關係上，尤其是《文創法》在服務業補貼暫行定義、第17條國民待遇、國內規章第6.1條與第23.3條非違反協定控訴之適法性分析，以作為日後執法或修正之參考。 但值得注意的是，相對於WTO以降低貿易壁壘，促進貿易自由化為職志，文化商品與服務之雙重特質在WTO無法獲得特殊之待遇或保障，2005年10月UNESCO通過之《保障及促進文化表現多樣性公約》(以下簡稱《文化多樣性公約》)卻主張國家有促進與保護文化表現多樣性之權利，並具有採行其認為適當之政策與措施達成該目的之主權。若《文創法》有其適用《文化多樣性公約》之可能，則我國在採行諸多文創產業推展措施卻有違WTO內括協定所涉及之貿易原則或義務時，是否得根據《文化多樣性公約》正當化該等爭議措施? 當《文化多樣性公約》與WTO內括協定產生規範衝突時，兩者之適用與解釋是否有互補或調和之可能? 在文化產業與貿易活動上，《文化多樣性公約》若能正當化違反WTO規範之政策措施，則我國《文創法》所擬定之政策措施在GATS框架下之解釋與義務即有所不同。因此在檢驗《文創法》與GATS之互動關係前，本文將先簡單介紹《文化多樣性公約》之優劣特性，及公約與WTO規範競合之解決與適用結果。 關鍵字：文化創意產業發展法、世界貿易組織、文化多樣性公約、國民待遇、非違反協定控訴 / Culture is the embodiment of a national spirit, social values, people’s worldview and life style, while creativity in all its manifestations presents an essential constitution of human culture. By way of industrialization and global distribution, the two are allowed to copy repeatedly and promote worldwide. Cultural and creative industries are “those industries that combine the creation, production and commercialization of contents that are intangible and cultural in nature”, which involve not only abstract culture and creativities but also material economic value and commercial operations of cultural goods and services derived from human ingenuity and originality. To make sure the policy and measures implemented in Taiwan to promote and flourish cultural and creative industries are legally based, the Ministry of Economic Affairs had invited the relevant ministries, scholars and experts in the field to deliberate and prepare the Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") since mid-‘90s, and finally submitted the draft Act to the Executive Yuan for review and approval on September 24, 2003. After years of promotion and negotiations, the Act was passed its third reading in the Legislative Yuan on January 7, 2010 and promulgated on February 3 by Presidential Decree Hwa Zong Yi Zi No. 09900022451. The related rules and regulations were also proclaimed in effect one after another ever since. However, as a WTO (World Trade Organization) member, it is our duty to keep the deliberately constructed measures set in the Act in line with the WTO-related disciplines. WTO, acting as an international forum calling for free trade, vows to eliminate tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, facilitate further market opening by multiple rounds of trade negotiations, and increase the predictability of market dynamics through the establishment of binding tariff rates, subsidy disciplines, specific commitments and various requirements such as most-favored-nation treatment, market access and national treatment. The same principles and obligations mentioned above apply to goods and services with culture in nature equally with no exception. In this regard, the paper will examine how the Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act, especially its subsidy and tax preference measures legally interact with the articles related including Article 15 Subsidy, Article 17 National Treatment, Article 6.1 Domestic Regulation and Article 23.3 Non-violation complaints (in view of the measures adopted in the Act are industry-supportive oriented and most industries categorized in the same act are belonging to service sector) in General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for reference of law enforcement and further amendments in the future. But it is worth noting that, while WTO (the organization and covered agreements) are dedicated to exterminate trade barriers, promote trade liberalization and ignore cultural goods and services have both an economic and a cultural nature, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Cultural Expressions (hereinafter referred to “the UNESCO Convention”) adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESC) on October 20, 2005 recognizes member countries have their sovereign right to formulate and implement their cultural policies and to adopt measures to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions when necessary. If the rules and principles of the UNESCO Convention apply to the Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act, then is it possible for the Convention to justify the measures we adopt to nourish the cultural industries, but somehow in violation of WTO principles and obligations? And if the answer is “Yes”, all the interpretation and obligations derived from the Act will not be the same as those covered by GATS only. Therefore, the potential conflicts and the harmonization between the UNESCO Convention and WTO covered agreements (GATS in particular) will be explored before the legal relationship between the Act and GATS is examined. Keywords: Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act, World Trade Organization, UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Cultural Expressions, National Treatment, Domestic Regulation, Non-violation complaints