營建產業雖為國家經濟發展之基石，但其產生的廢棄物數量龐大（約佔全國事業廢棄物總量三分之一），且以成分複雜的營建混合物（D-0599）為大宗，對環境永續造成顯著壓力。現行管理制度雖以《廢棄物清理法》第46條（屬於刑事責任）與第48條（屬於申報不實罪）為管控核心，但在實務執行上，法律規範與產業運作存在嚴重落差。特別是業者因工程管理需求進行之「料場暫置」或「近運」行為，常因法規僵化或定義模糊，導致「行政犯刑事化」之爭議，使合規業者陷入刑事追訴風險，而不法業者則仍能利用制度漏洞進行非法棄置。 本研究旨在探討營建廢棄物刑事管控制度的有效性與困境，釐清法規與實務間的鴻溝。研究採用「混合研究法」，從理論與實務雙重視角進行深入檢析： 1. 文獻回顧：系統性梳理國內外管理體系與刑事介入模式。 2. 司法實證分析：蒐集近五年相關判決，解析法院對於「暫置行為」的認定標準與量刑趨勢。 3. Kruskal-Wallis H 檢定（簡稱 K-W 檢定）：針對產（營造商）、官（主管機關）、法（司法機關）、學（法律學者）四方專家進行問卷調查，是一種無母數統計分析方法，用於比較三個或更多獨立樣本的中位數是否存在顯著差異，類似於獨立樣本單因子變異數檢定。 經研究發現如下： 1. 司法實務之落差：司法判決傾向「重程序許可、輕實質危害」。法院常將未具行政許可之移置行為嚴格認定為非法清除，忽略工程實務必要性，導致量刑集中於法定刑下限並輔以緩刑，呈現「情輕法重」之矛盾現象。 2. 申報制度之漏洞：第 48 條之文書信用法益在實務中常被工具化，用以補強第 46 條環境法益侵害證明之不足，進而產生程序犯替代實體犯訴追之體系失衡現象。因缺乏即時監控與明確補正機制，行政管理難以事前預防不法，僅能事後追訴。 3. 利害關係人之認知衝突：統計檢定顯示，營造業與主管機關在料場備查制的支持度上呈現極顯著差異（p < .01），證實了政策推行之社會阻力來自於管轄端之不信任感。此種「認知落差（Perception Gap）」是導致行政與刑事責任配置失衡的主因。 本研究依據實證結果，提出三階段改進策略： 1. 短期：推動「短期暫置備查機制」，透過數位軌跡證明業者確實有將廢棄物運往合法去處的計畫，而非惡意棄置，以此作為「阻卻違法」或「行政罰優先」的證據基礎，將管理性行為納入行政管控軌道，避免不當刑事化。 2. 中期：修正《廢清法》第46條，引入量化指標（如堆置時限、污染風險分級），制定統一的起訴與量刑指引。 3. 長期：健全再生材料品質標準與強制採購制度，消除產品堆置引發的非法棄置動機，達成環境正義與產業發展之平衡。;The construction industry is a cornerstone of national economic development; however， it generates a massive volume of waste， accounting for approximately one-third of the nation’s total industrial waste. The majority consists of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Mixed Waste (D-0599)， posing significant pressure on environmental sustainability. While current management relies on Articles 46 (Criminal Liability) and 48 (False Reporting) of the Waste Disposal Act as core regulatory mechanisms， a severe gap exists between legal norms and industrial practice. Specifically， common industry practices such as "temporary storage at material yards" or "nearby transport" for project management needs often lead to controversies regarding the "criminalization of administrative offenses" due to rigid regulations and blurred definitions. This leaves compliant operators at risk of criminal prosecution while illicit actors continue to exploit systemic loopholes for illegal dumping. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and dilemmas of the criminal control system for construction waste， clarifying the chasm between regulation and reality. Employing a mixed-methods approach， this research provides an in-depth analysis from both theoretical and practical perspectives: 1. Literature Review: A systematic review of domestic and international management systems and criminal intervention models. 2. Judicial Empirical Analysis: A collection of relevant judgments from the past five years to analyze the court′s criteria for defining "temporary storage" and sentencing trends. 3. Kruskal-Wallis H test (K-W test for short): This test involves a questionnaire survey of experts from four sectors: production (construction companies)， government (government authorities)， law (judicial organs)， and academia (legal scholars). It is a non-parametric statistical analysis method used to compare whether there are significant differences in the medians of three or more independent samples， similar to the independent samples one-way variance test. Note: SPSS software was used for analysis. The findings are as follows: 1. Fractures in Judicial Practice: Judicial rulings tend to prioritize "procedural permits" over "substantial environmental harm." Courts often strictly categorize relocation without administrative permits as illegal disposal， ignoring project necessities. This leads to a paradoxical "minor offense， severe law" phenomenon where sentences are clustered at the statutory minimum and frequently coupled with probation. 2. Loopholes in the Reporting System: The legal interest of "documentary credit" in Article 48 is often instrumentalized to compensate for the difficulty of proving environmental harm under Article 46. This creates a systemic imbalance where procedural offenses replace substantive offenses in prosecution. Due to a lack of real-time monitoring and clear correction mechanisms， administrative management fails to prevent illegality ex-ante， relying solely on ex-post prosecution. 3. Perceptual Conflicts among Stakeholders: Statistical tests reveal a highly significant difference (p < .01) between the construction industry and regulatory authorities regarding support for a "Material Yard Filing System." This confirms that social resistance to policy stems from a "Perception Gap" and a lack of trust at the regulatory end， which is the primary cause of the imbalance between administrative and criminal liability.
Based on these empirical results， this study proposes a three-stage improvement strategy: 1. Short-term: Promote a "Short-term Temporary Storage Filing Mechanism." By using digital tracking to prove that operators intend to transport waste to legal destinations rather than dump it maliciously， this serves as an evidentiary basis for "Grounds for Excluding Illegality" or "Administrative Penalty First" to avoid improper criminalization. 2. Medium-term: Amend Article 46 of the Waste Disposal Act to introduce quantitative indicators (e.g.， storage time limits， pollution risk levels) and establish unified prosecution and sentencing guidelines. 3. Long-term: Standardize quality benchmarks for recycled materials and implement a mandatory procurement system to eliminate the incentive for illegal dumping caused by product stockpiling， thereby achieving a balance between environmental justice and industrial development.
