【摘要】 森林法有關的刑罰規定，自七十年前大陸時期就已經存在，這段期間雖然有作多次修改，但重點僅止於「加重其刑」一途，並無考量到刑法核心議題 ─ 法益；對於森林法的學術研究或實務運作，亦未注意到此一問題，多年來習於將森林法各罪的法益定位成「個人法益」概念，衍生出許多錯誤論和競合論的問題有待釐清。如此不僅增加了解釋適用法律的困難，更因為囿限在個人法益的觀點上，忽略了保育森林的公益機能，也低估了森林資源的重要性和影響力。 本文藉由立法歷程和時代演進的觀察，認為危害森林的不法行為應以刑事制裁對付，且法益型態為超個人的「環境法益」，此方能凸顯環境保育的重要性。確定法益，解讀森林法各罪時便有清晰的脈絡可依循，亦即行為人只有在「重大危害森林」的情況下，才會成立犯罪；釐清法益，犯罪競合的處理才能更清楚，區隔出森林刑罰和主刑法各罪、及其他附屬刑法間的關係。 結論上，建議透過「環境法益」將森林法各罪的構成要件重新描述，捨棄現行法運用管領力的不當概念，改正為僅針對「重大危害森林」之情形方以刑罰對付，至於其他違反林業行政的不法行為，則統歸行政制裁的範疇，並針對不法內涵的程度，設計出不同層次的法律效果。另外，涉及「保育森林」的附屬刑法眾多，現行法規範的重疊性甚高，並不妥適，立法上應對此等規範通盤檢討，可以「保留其一、刪除其他」，或是針對不同程度的法益侵害情形，將各種附屬刑法以「法條競合的補充關係」重新設計。 / 【Summary】 The criminal sanction in the Forest Law has existed for seventy years. Although it has been revised several times, the criminal concept only discussed on the increase of the penalty, nothing on the core -- legal interests. Even the academic study or the practice in fact did not reach the key point. People have been used to position the legal interests as individual for many years. That led to numerous thorny problems of "Irrtum" and "Konkurrenzlehre". It not only made explanation more difficult, but also mires it into a blind point. That is, if we limit the criminal sanction to the concept of individual interests, and distinguish regulatory offenses and criminal sanction from disposition right, it will verge the public welfare of environmental protection to the margin, also lower the importance of forest management. By studying the legislative process through different periods of time, the environmental legal interest is affirmed to be the core of the thesis. Thus one urges that through the clarification of legal interests where major & subsidiary laws can be clearly defined, "Konkurrenzlehre" problem will be managed precisely, Conclusively, the environmental legal interests should be the elements of crime in the Forest Law. Also, we should abandon the concept of disposition right in the current law, and simplify the elements. We could only inflict criminal punishment on those who pillage the resources, pollute or damage the environment, or other behaviors that causes ecocatastrophe. As for the other illegal behaviors against forest administration, those should be regulated by regulatory offenses. Besides, there are lots of subsidiary criminal law in connection with forest protection. Clauses disperse on different laws overlap each other. It should be redesigned on the basis of "Normatives Einschluβoder Stufenverhaltnis".

The existence or abolishment of adultery has been a dispute in academic circles for a long time. Though, it is permissible under the Constitution, according to the Constitutional Interpretation 554. However, many domestic law scholars and feminists argue that adultery should allow to be decriminalized from the perspectives of proportional principle, balance of criminal law¡¦s interest and comparative legal institution. This dissertation analyses the crime of adultery in current days via a newly emerging research approach, namely legal economics. To begin with, I clarify and confirm the legal interests in which marriage and family institutions are involved, that is to say the right of family, whom the crime of adultery in criminal law protects. Taking them as a analysis benchmark, and apply them to be the criterion on the assessment of crime of adultery thereafter. Then, use the concepts of demand, cost and benefit as tools, analyze the feasors and victim of adultery comparatively on the basis of the practice of current prosecution and judgement. The analysis shows that the norms of current crime of adultery couldn¡¦t objectively prevent it from happening. Moreover, it is a burden for the victim wife to start a lawsuit. The advantages obtained from criminal lawsuit could simply be retrieved from claim right in civil code. Besides, lawsuit started by victim wife always lead to family disharmony which at the same time contradicts the benefit of family right entitled by the crime itself. It infers that the crime of adultery should be discriminalized. During the research process, I also analyze the philosophical essence and theory of legal economics, which affirm the legitimate application of economics on law research. Will it lack protection on marriage and family institution after crime of adultery being discriminalized? The article considers this in a view of basic rights protection in the Constitution. How could we fullfil the protection through the law of a lower-level after the crime of adultery being recognized as the protection of family right, which at the same time the basic right the Constitution protects? After summarizing perspectives of theory and practice could be divided to the one that involves the conclusion of marriage, the termination of freedom and monogamy as a narrow interpretation of family right, and nurturing teenagers and protecting family members as broad interpretation on the other. Thus, the way of legalization should be different due to the distinction of broad and narrow family right. As to the narrow family right, it should focus on protection of the right of freedom. In addition, according to the rigidity of criminal law, especially being reviewed by proportional principle, there should be no need to limit the execution of freedom right, when it involves adultery, a stronger behavior in ethical level. Therefore, the existence of crime of adultery is unnecessary. There is a necessity that the Constitution Interpretation 554 needs to be reviewed. However, as far as the broad interpretation of family right is concerned, the criminal law couldn¡¦t force people to accomplish certain do¡¦s and don¡¦ts if it makes great damages to human dignity or jeopardizes the continuity of personality and family.

Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-02-15T15:06:21Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcelo Castelo Branco Ismael_.pdf: 694892 bytes, checksum: 679290555dd778e5c165ec75c8658769 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-02-15T15:06:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcelo Castelo Branco Ismael_.pdf: 694892 bytes, checksum: 679290555dd778e5c165ec75c8658769 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-12-18 / Nenhuma / A presente pesquisa tem como objetivo analisar a necessidade e racionalidade da expansão do Direito Penal em face da tutela de novos bens jurídicos. Tal objetivo foi realizado através de um diálogo entre as ideias de Claus Roxin e Gunther Jakobs á respeito dos fundamentos e finalidades do Direito Penal. Segundo Roxin, o Direito Penal deve ser utilizado como forma de proteção dos bens jurídicos essenciais ao pleno desenvolvimento e existência de um Estado. Por outro lado, Gunther Jakobs defende que o Direito Penal tem como finalidade assegurar a vigência da norma. No primeiro capítulo, é abordada a expansão do Direito Penal, seu significado, motivos, efeitos e exemplos concretos, para tanto sendo tratado um estudo com relação à sociedade do risco, à disseminação do medo ante o risco e ao papel da sociedade como propulsora e vítima dessa expansão legiferante. No segundo capítulo existe uma averiguação sobre a racionalidade legislativa criminal deste movimento expansivo, principalmente na fase pré-legislativa em face da disfunção social geradora da expansão penal irrefletida. Para tanto se fez a apresentação de um conceito de racionalidade, sendo realizada ainda uma abordagem sobre as teorias que legitimam a pena e a demonstração de que o movimento expansivo penal vai de encontro aos princípios fundantes do Direito Penal. Princípios como o da intervenção mínima, o da subsidiariedade, princípios isto a partir da criação dos tipos simbólicos e ineficazes e após uma breve análise dos princípios que regem o Direito Penal. No terceiro capítulo há a apresentação do conceito de bens jurídicos como também dos novos bens jurídicos carentes de tutela penal. Ainda que também, uma discussão real á respeito da finalidade do Direito Penal em face da tutela de bens jurídicos, realizando um diálogo entre as teorias funcionalistas de Roxin e Jakobs, ao apresentar o ponto racional de cada uma. O método utilizado é o fenomenológico hermenêutico, e isto através de uma revisão bibliográfica, ao final sendo demonstrado que a função do Direito Penal vai além da proteção dos bens jurídicos ou da vigência da norma, na verdade o Direito Penal sendo considerado como um limite ao arbítrio e como delimitador de um Estado social democrático de Direito. / This research aims to examine the necessity and rationality of the expansion of criminal law in the face of new legal protection of property. This objective will be accomplished by means of a dialogue between the ideas of Claus Roxin and Gunther Jakobs about the fundamentals and purposes of criminal law. According to Roxin, criminal law should be used as a protection of essential interests legal to the full development and existence of a state. On the other hand, Gunther Jakobs argues that the criminal law is intended to ensure the validity of the standard. In the first chapter discussed the expansion of criminal law, its meaning, motives, purposes and concrete examples, for both will be treated based on the society's risk and the spread of fear towards risk and the role of society as a driver and victim of this expansion legislating. In the second chapter will be check the legislative rationality criminal of such expansive movement, especially in the pre-legislative's phase opposite generating social dysfunction thoughtless criminal expansion. A concept of rationality, that will be presented still being made an approach to theories that legitimize the penalty in order to be shown that the criminal expansive movement goes against the founding principles of criminal law, as the minimum intervention, subsidiarity, creating symbolic's and ineffective tupes, after a brief analysis of the principles governing the criminal law. In the third chapter will be presents the concept of good legal, the new poor legal interests of penal law. As also discussed the real purpose of criminal law in the face of the protection of legal interests, performing a dialogue between the functionalist theories by Roxin and Jakobs, presented on the rational point of each. The method used is the phenomenological's hermeneutic through at literature search, the end being shown that the function of criminal law goes beyond protecting legal interests or the validity of the standard, it is actually a limit to the discretion and delimiter of a welfare state democratic rights.

The problem of admissibility of evidence in the penal cause takes special place because not all evidence is admissible as main tool for defending one’s violated rights and legal interests.In the first chapter of final paper the conception of admissibility of evidence is revealed, the general requirements for the evidence, the rules of admissibility of evidence, peculiarities of violated procedural form of admissibility of evidence are analyzed.In the second chapter the peculiarities of admissibility of evidence are analyzed in the countries of common and civil law. In the third chapter using the practice of courts it is revealed how common rules of admissibility of evidence can be applied practically in different ways.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Isabel Rebello Pinho Dias.pdf: 1159847 bytes, checksum: 3ca64f435d10aa03f86c476629f93d32 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-05-26 / Studying the Law about urban land division - Law nº 6.766/79 - is essential to understand some aspects of the urban issues in modern society. As a matter of fact, it is clear that there is not enough research about the theme, which results in direct damage to the entire society once the urban rules are not respected. The fact that this law is more than thirty years old does not exclude the interest in deepening its analysis because, since then, a new Federal Constitution was promulgated and several other laws related to the theme became effective. In this context, a few important questions shall be posed: have the urban crimes determined by Law nº 6.766/79 been corroborated by the new constitutional order? Is there any interest in criminalizing actions referring to the illegal parceling of the urban land? What is the best way of criminalizing them? Which criminal legal interests do these crimes protect? This study aims to discuss such an important matter and therefore stimulating deeper research by legal experts about the theme. Hopefully, as a consequence of increased debate on illegal parceling of the land, a healthier and more sustainable urban development in a long term perspective will be fostered / O estudo da Lei do Parcelamento do Solo Urbano - Lei nº 6.766/79 - é essencial para aprofundar as questões que envolvem os problemas urbanísticos existentes na nossa sociedade. Percebe-se que há uma lacuna na doutrina na análise desse tema, o que gera prejuízo a toda coletividade diretamente afetada pelo desrespeito às diretrizes urbanísticas. O fato de essa legislação contar com mais de trinta anos não exauriu o interesse no seu exame, pois, após a sua entrada em vigor, foi promulgada uma nova Constituição Federal e passaram a viger diversas leis relacionadas à matéria. Nesse contexto colocam-se as seguintes questões: os crimes urbanísticos foram recepcionados pela nova ordem constitucional? Há interesse em incriminar as condutas de parcelamento ilegal do solo urbano? Qual é a melhor forma de criminalizá-las? Qual o bem jurídico protegido por tais delitos? Esse trabalho pretende discutir essas questões, a fim de contribuir para que o tema seja aprofundado na nossa doutrina. Isso porque, quiçá, com o debate sobre a melhor forma de tratamento das condutas de parcelamento ilegal se possa facilitar um desenvolvimento mais sadio e adequado das cidades, resguardando-se o ordenamento do território e o meio ambiente