法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 禁止錯誤之法律效果-為故意理論辯護(The Legal Effect of Prohibition Mistake: Vindication of Intention Theory)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2015.09
刊登出處: 台灣/政大法學評論第 142 期 /149-226 頁
頁  數: 47 點閱次數: 2052
下載點數: 188 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 薛智仁
關 鍵 詞: 禁止錯誤故意理論罪責理論罪責原則不法意識構成要件
中文摘要: 在二○○五年的刑法總則修正中,立法者依據罪責理論的原理,將不可避免禁止錯誤的法律效果修改為阻卻罪責。不過,本文將指出,罪責理論並非貫徹罪責原則的最佳方案,其將不法意識視為故意以外的獨立罪責要素,使禁止錯誤的行為人受到比構成要件錯誤的行為人更不利的待遇,是迄今仍找不出合理根據的作法。相對之下,故意理論將不法意識視為故意的組成部分,平等對待構成要件錯誤與禁止錯誤的行為人,才是合理的出發點,至於罪責理論批評其造成難以忍受的可罰性漏洞,以及不當地優惠習慣犯與確信犯,都是言過其實的指摘。依此立場,故意固然仍是主觀不法要素,其內涵卻產生大幅的變化,難以和現行法相符合,有待立法者修法採納。
英文關鍵詞: Prohibition MistakeIntention TheoryGuilt TheoryGuilt Princi-pleIllegality CognitionMistakes of Essential Factors
英文摘要: In the 2005 amendment of the General Provisions of the Criminal Code, legislators modified the legal effect of the inevitable prohibition mistake to negate guilt. This amendment is considered to be the fulfill-ment of the guilt principle, and is to be universally endorsed. However, this study points out that the theory is not the best solution to implement the guilt principle. It regards "illegality cognition" as an element inde-pendent of subjective intent, which exposes the perpetrators of prohibit-tion mistake to more unfavorable treatment compared to those perpe-trating mistakes of essential factors. This practice has yet to form a rea-sonable basis. In contrast, the intention theory, which was not adopted by legislators, regards "illegality cognition" as an element of subjective intent, and gives the above-mentioned perpetrators equal treatment. That is the proper starting point. As supporters of the theory of guilt criticize it, it has caused excruciating vulnerability of punishment, and improperly given concessions to both habitual criminals and crimes of conscience. In fact, the accusations are exaggerated. Therefore, this study supports intention theory. Whether it is based on mistakes of fact or law, prohibition mistake both negates the effectiveness of intention, and the act is considered to have been committed negligently. By this position, although intention is still an element of subjective iniquity, the connotation has changed so substantially that it is hard to be consistent with the current law. It still awaits amendment by legislators.
目  次: 壹、問題背景
貳、思考路徑
參、檢視罪責理論
一、基本立場:區分構成要件錯誤與禁止錯誤
二、事實與法律誤認之可責性差異?
(一)認知事實與法律的可能性不同
(二)否決事實與法律效力的可能性不同
三、構成要件故意之訴求機能?
四、信念倫理與責任倫理之分?
五、小結
肆、再探故意理論
一、基本立場
二、造成難以忍受的可罰性漏洞?
(一)故意與不法意識之認知種類不同
(二)誤認違法性之抗辯難以被推翻
三、不當優待法敵對與法盲目之人?
四、行為人處分法秩序的存續?
五、新增法律過失之獨立構成要件?
六、小結
伍、對於故意概念與錯誤理論的影響
一、故意的內涵與定位
(一)故意的內涵
(二)故意的定位
二、相鄰錯誤類型之處置方式
三、附論:宜採二階層理論
陸、結論及展望
一、禁止錯誤阻卻不法故意
二、相關規定之修法方向
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列