大統長基案因油品事件涉及食安法第 49 條第 1 項之食安法添加物攙偽、行為人刑法詐欺，法人亦依據食安法第 49 條第 1 項第5款被科以罰金，食安法涉及行政罰第18條追繳18億5千萬元與刑罰3千8百萬元罰金之競合，唯恐食安法架構下之刑罰不斷擴張。
本論文觀察大統長基案之判決，言及之攙偽與混充概念之差異，觀察食安法的歷年修法經緯，包含大統長基案後新增法人刑事責任與不法利得之規定，提出(1)以風險分級制度分類食安事件並不周全、(2)解釋混充文義辨別食安事件之違法性、(3)攙偽涉及添加物之違規態樣及劑量規範並不完善、(4)一事不二罰之釐清與不法利得之應用方向。
最後，試圖以立法論及解釋論之方向，改善食品安全機關法令之不備。
The Datong Food Company Case, stemming from an oil product incident, involves violations of Article 49, Paragraph 1 of the Food Safety Law regarding the adulteration of food additives. This case also touches upon criminal fraud under the Penal Code, with the corporation being fined according to Article 49, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Food Safety Law. This case has led to an administrative fine of NT$1.85 billion and a criminal fine of NT$38 million, raising concerns about the expanding scope of penalties under the Food Safety Law.
This paper examines the judgment in the Datong Food Company Case, focus on the distinctions between adulteration and substitution, and reviews the legislative history of the Food Safety Law. It includes new provisions for corporate criminal liability and illegal gains introduced after the Datong Food Company Case. The paper presents several key points: (1) the inadequacy of the risk classification system in categorizing food safety incidents, (2) the interpretation of "substitution" to determine the illegality of food safety incidents, (3) the imperfection of regulations on the nature and dosage of additives involved in adulteration, and (4) the clarification of the principle of " ne bis in idem " and the application of illegal gains.
Finally, the paper aims to improve the legal provisions of food safety authorities through legislative and interpretative recommendations.
