[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":46},["ShallowReactive",2],{"q-credit_adv_law-25-021":3},{"exam":4,"examName":5,"chapterSlug":6,"question":7,"related":22},"credit_adv_law","進階授信人員專業能力測驗——授信法規","c1",{"id":8,"exam":4,"session":9,"qno":10,"question":11,"options":12,"answer":17,"chapter":18,"freq":19,"explanation":20,"difficulty":21},"credit_adv_law-25-021","25",21,"我國刑法對於犯罪責任要件之規定，下列敘述何者正確？",[13,14,15,16],"行為非出於故意或過失者，不罰。但過失行為之處罰，以有特別規定者，為限","行為非出於故意或過失者，不罰。但故意行為之處罰，以有特別規定者，為限","行為出於故意或過失者，無論刑法有無規定，均要處罰","過失行為之處罰，只限於中華民國刑法有規定者，才可處罰",0,"授信基本法律",1,"刑法採罪責原則，行為既無故意也無過失就不處罰；至於過失犯，因為可責性明顯低於故意犯，刑法明定過失行為之處罰以有特別規定者為限，也就是必須各罪章另有處罰過失的明文，例如過失致死、過失傷害，才罰得下去，故 (A) 正確。(B) 把限制對象換成故意行為，顛倒了原則與例外，故意犯本來就是處罰的常態；(C) 稱不論有無規定均要處罰，直接牴觸罪刑法定主義；(D) 把來源限縮在中華民國刑法，漏掉特別刑法與行政刑罰中同樣存在的過失處罰規定，範圍過窄。金融從業人員涉及的財產犯罪多以故意為要件。","easy",[23,26,30,34,38,42],{"id":24,"question":25,"qno":19},"credit_adv_law-23-001","有關銀行法第三十條反面承諾，下列敘述何者錯誤？",{"id":27,"question":28,"qno":29},"credit_adv_law-23-002","銀行辦理消費性放款，下列敘述何者正確？",2,{"id":31,"question":32,"qno":33},"credit_adv_law-23-003","依銀行法規定，下列敘述何者錯誤？",3,{"id":35,"question":36,"qno":37},"credit_adv_law-23-004","下列何者非屬甲金融控股公司之子公司？",4,{"id":39,"question":40,"qno":41},"credit_adv_law-23-005","乙銀行為甲金融控股公司之銀行子公司，丙公司為甲金融控股公司之關係企業。依金融控股公司法規定，乙銀行購買丙公司所發行之有價證券，其交易金額不得超過多少？",5,{"id":43,"question":44,"qno":45},"credit_adv_law-23-006","同一業別金融機構合併時，因合併而有逾越法令規定範圍者，主管機關應命其限期調整；若逾越一般法令之調整期限及逾越銀行法令有關關係人授信或同一人、同一關係人或同一關係企業授信規定者之調整期限，分別為多久？",6,1785170289782]