| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 100 === Because of the shortage of government funding, the financial resources of sports industry development are limited. One side, sports funding has been inadequate for long, after layers of allocation, the players obtain the resource scarcely. The other side, the large-scaled sports facilities are obviously insufficient and the international class athletic activities can be held very few in Taiwan, in addition to lacking of the relevant policies to promote and reward, the visibility of the players is very low. Therefore, the willingness of the general corporate sponsor seems to lack. In due to these above unfavorable factors, to issue the sports lottery by government seems regarded as a rapid and effective way to raise sports funding.
In order to gain financial supports for the development of sports and for the exploration, the training and attention of the athletes in Taiwan, the government decided to issue sports lottery. However, the issuance of the sports lottery needs legal authorization. Therefore, the Sports Lottery Issuance Act was enacted to regulate the issuance of the sports lottery.
In order to oppress the illegal gambling and to protect the fairness of the sports betting games, Article 21 of the Sports Lottery Issuance Act criminalizes those illegally influence the fairness of the sports betting games are of the sports lottery. The major type of the cheating games in professional baseball is that the players were financially seduced to play cheatingly as required. The players who cheat in the games as required violate Article 21 which punishes the act of influencing the fairness of sports betting games. Nevertheless, according to the legislative purpose of Article 21 of the Sports Lottery Issuance Act, in order to protect the individual safety of the baseball players, it is necessary to punish those who employ illegal violence, but fail, to influence the fairness of the games. This, however, seems a conflict with the first paragraph of Article 21. With the reference to foreign legislation, together with the study of both the textual definition of the elements and legislative purpose of Article 21, I hope to discover the flaw in the Act and provide a suggestion for amendment, with the aim to make it a sound and preventive regulation.
|
|---|
