法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 遺棄罪之研究-待釐清保護法益的具體危險犯(A Study of the Crime of Abandonment: The Unclarified Legally Protected Interests for the Punishment of Concrete Crime of Danger)
編著譯者: 許澤天
出版日期: 2010.10
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 22 卷 第 2 期 /1-45 頁
頁  數: 45 點閱次數: 5234
下載點數: 180 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 東吳大學 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 遺棄法益扶養請求權危險結果危險故意
中文摘要: 遺棄罪是危險犯的規定,這點在學說上並無疑問。學說上爭議甚久的,乃是遺棄罪究係具體危險犯,還是抽象危險犯。不過,在處理此項爭議前,更有必要先解決遺棄罪所保護法益究係為何的問題。此處,除了學說上所討論的,是否要把法益從生命擴張到身體利益外,實務上逐漸地把扶養請求權納入保護範圍, 2010 年初所新增訂的刑法第二九四條之一,似乎即是在肯定此前提下所設的不罰規定。然而,從現行法解釋觀點與比較法上考察,扶養請求權不是遺棄罪要保護的法益,是否保護,仍待立法明確明文。
現行法的遺棄罪結構,區別刑法第二九三條「一般遺棄罪」與刑法第二九四條「有義務者之遺棄罪」,應無必要,可在立法上合併成一條規定,而只剩下前者。因為,透過刑法第十五條不純正不作為犯規定,即可發揮取代後者之功能;誠然,前提必須是將一般遺棄罪的法定刑修改,方能維持價值平衡。又,無自救力之人係屬遺棄罪所要特別強調的保護客體,解釋上需以一定持續性為前提,否則將使遺棄罪轉變成所謂的「一般生命危險罪」。同時,危險結果須與行為之危險性相區隔,方才符合具體危險犯的性質;而危險故意則係介於實害故意與有認識過失的主觀不法。

英文關鍵詞: abandonlegal interestclaim for supportaccomplished dangerintended danger
英文摘要: There is no doubt that crime of abandonment (Aussetzung) is a crime of danger (Gefährdungsdelikt) under criminal theories. However, what categories, either the crime of concrete danger (konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt) or the crime of abstract danger (abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt), the crime of abandonment falls into is a longstanding dispute among criminal scholars. Nevertheless, prior to touching upon this dispute, there is a prerequisite question to be explored, which is what legal interests the crime of abandonment is enacted to protect. Besides the heated scholarly debate of whether to expand the coverage of protected legal interests from people’s lives to people’s body, the courts have recognized that the claim for support is within the domain of protected legal interests. The exemption under Article 294-1 of the Criminal Code, as amended in early 2010, may serve as an excellent example to amplify the expansion of the coverage of legally protected interests. Whereas, there is no statutory langua ge ascertaining the expansion and both the statutory interpretation and the comparative studies indicate otherwise. It remains an issue to be resolved by the legislative branch.
Currently, there are two kinds of crimes of abandonment in Criminal Code, which are the General Crime of Abandonment under Article 293 and the Crime of Abandonment Committed by One Who Is under an Obligation under Article 294. The Criminal Code distinguishes the former with the latter and such a distinction is unnecessary. The latter shall be incorporated into the former. Through the application of Article 15 of the Criminal Code, the concept of crimes committed under quasi-omission is broad enough to cover the Crime of Abandonment Committed by One Who Is under an Obligation under the General Crime of Abandonment. Of course, before the incorporation, the criminal penalty under Article 293 of the Criminal Code shall be amended in order to encompass the application of Article 293 to the crime originally punished under Article 294 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, to protect those who can not support themselves is the very reason why the crime of abandonment is enacted, and hence, the interpretation of Art icle 293 shall be based upon this legislative intent. Otherwise the incorporation will turn the crime of abandonment into a so-called Crime of Endanger Others’ Lives. Further, the concepts of the accomplished danger and the degree of danger of a criminal act shall be distinguished in order to be in accordance with the nature of the concrete crime of danger. Furthermore, it shall be clarifies that the concept of intended danger shall fall between the concept of a criminal’s intention to accomplish the criminal result and a criminal’s subjective misunderstanding of criminal action.

目  次: 壹、問題的提出
貳、曖昧不清的保護法益
一、無自救力人之生命或身體利益
二、扶養請求權
三、危難中之重要個人法益
四、與肇事逃逸罪比較
參、遺棄罪之性質與結構
一、危險犯之屬性與功能
(一)抽象危險犯之形式根據
(二)具體危險犯之實質理由
(三)立法明文解決爭議
(四)立法功能與必要性
二、條文結構-他山之石
(一)概說
(二)德國法的結構
(三)奧地利法的結構
(四)日本法的結構
(五)瑞士法的結構
三、我國遺棄罪的結構檢討
(一)與德奧差異
(二)問題所在
(三)問題對策
肆、遺棄罪的解釋
一、個別不法要素
(一)無自救力之人
(二)遺棄行為
(三)不為保護
(四)負有保護義務的人
二、危險要素
(一)危險結果
(二)危險故意
伍、修法建議(結論)
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列