毒品危害防制條例就販賣毒品犯罪所設之刑罰嚴峻，其中，尤以毒品危害防制條例第4條第1項規定販賣第一級毒品者得處死刑、無期徒刑為甚。就此，憲法法庭112年憲判字第13號判決以上述規定違反罪刑相當原則為由，宣告違憲並定期失效，另宣告修法前得依本判決意旨減輕其刑。然而，販賣第二級、第三級毒品之處罰規定，同有前述違反罪刑相 當原則之疑慮。本文透過案例蒐集、分析的方式，觀察到在系爭判決作成後，雖有部分法院判決依循系爭判決論理，作為在販賣第二級、第三級毒品案件是否適用刑法第59條減刑之標準，但現階段實務見解分歧，仍有待進一步觀察。
　　另從比較法的角度觀察，英國販毒量刑準則依循「行為 人在販毒案件中擔任之角色」及「行為人販賣毒品所生危害等級」，針對販毒案件建構完整的量刑系統，與憲法法庭 112年憲判字第13號判決揭示之修法方向部分一致，其內容應可作為相關機關依該判決修法時之參考。而於完成修法前，前述英國販毒量刑準則內容，亦可供具體化前述憲法法庭判決意旨，以利法院於販毒案件具體操作是否依前述憲法 法庭判決意旨減刑之論理依據。
　　最終，本文認為，系爭判決雖僅針對販賣第一級毒品罪所為，但正如部分最高法院判決所述，實質上亦對販賣第二級、第三級毒品案件是否適用刑法第59條減刑之判斷產生影響，應透過系爭判決原因案件事實及英國販毒量刑準則內容，進一步具體化相關量刑因子，方有助於達成販毒案件量刑之妥適與公平。

關鍵詞：罪刑相當原則、英國販毒量刑準則、刑法第59條

　　The Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act imposes severe penalties for drug-trafficking offenses, among which Article 4, section 1 is particularly stringent, providing that a person who sells Category one narcotics may be punished by death or life imprisonment. In TTC Judgement 112-Hsien-Pan-13 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the TTC Judgement”), the Court held that the aforementioned provision violated the principle of proportionality in criminal punishment, declared it unconstitutional, and ordered its invalidation after a prescribed period. The Court further directed that, prior to the revision of the said provision, sentences may be reduced in accordance with the reasoning of the TTC Judgement.
　　However, the penalty provisions governing the sale of Category two- and three-narcotics raise similar concerns regarding inconsistency with the proportionality principle. Through case collection and analysis, this article finds that, after the TTC Judgement, certain courts have relied on its reasoning to reduce sentences in cases involving the sale of Category two- and three-narcotics according to Article 59 of the Criminal Code. Nonetheless, divergent views persist in judicial practice, and further observation remains necessary.
　　From a comparative-law perspective, the sentencing guideline for “Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug/Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another” in England and Wales (hereinafter referred to as “the Sentencing Guideline”) provides a comprehensive sentencing framework based on the offender’s role in the trafficking operation and the level of harm associated with the narcotics involved. This framework corresponds, in part, with the legislative direction suggested in the TTC Judgement. It can be a reference for legislative revisions pursuant to the TTC Judgement. Moreover, prior to the revision, the Sentencing Guideline may be conducive concretize the TTC Judgement’s reasoning, thereby providing courts with a principled basis for determining whether to reduce sentences in drug-trafficking cases under the TTC Judgement.
　　Ultimately, this article contends that although the TTC Judgement formally addressed only the offense of selling Category one narcotics, it has, as noted in certain Supreme Court decisions, substantively influenced determinations regarding the applicability of Article 59 of the Criminal Code in cases involving the sale of Category two- and three-narcotics. Therefore it is essential to refine the sentencing factors—drawing upon the facts of the case underlying the TTC Judgement and the sentencing guidelines — to achieve appropriate and equitable sentencing in drug-trafficking cases.

Keywords: The Principle of Proportionality between Crime and Punishment, The Sentencing Guideline for Supplying or Offering to Supply a Controlled Drug/Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Supply It to Another in England and Wales, Article 59 of the Criminal Code