法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 評「所知‧所犯」規則於司法實務上的運用(The application of "what a defendent knows or does" rule in courts)
編著譯者: 蔡聖偉
出版日期: 2014.04
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 25 卷 第 4 期 /95-131 頁
頁  數: 37 點閱次數: 368
下載點數: 148 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 蔡聖偉
關 鍵 詞: 錯誤理論所知所犯故意包含關係不同毒品等級間的客體錯誤評價矛盾共犯踰越
中文摘要: 1912 年公布的暫行新刑律第 13 條第 3 項規定:「犯罪之事實與犯人所知有異者,依下列處斷:第一、所犯重於犯人所知或相等者,從其所知;第二、所犯輕於犯人所知者,從其所犯」。我們若是純以上開文字為基礎,不加任何限制地理解、適用這個規則,那麼只要一發生錯誤,就一律要從輕罪論處(除非所知與所犯輕重相等),恐怕難以合於現今的犯罪審查體系。在不等價的構成要件錯誤與反面構成要件錯誤同時出現的情形,以及當行為人主觀上對於客觀上存在的罪責減免事實無所認知時,便可明顯看出這樣的結論有何不妥。
依照現今犯罪審查體系,只有當所知與所犯罪名係處於語意上的包含關係,或是我們可以證立相關構成要件均屬同一犯罪類型時,才可以在輕度不法的範圍內成立故意既遂犯。但為了能夠充分評價不法事實,對於超越的部分,仍可能會有未遂或過失的責任。反之,如果錯誤所涉及的罪名,既非處於語意上的包含關係,亦非屬同一犯罪類型,便不可能成立輕罪的故意既遂犯,而應該要就其所知及所犯的罪名分別論處未遂犯與過失犯。在處理共犯踰越的問題時,也應該依據此一判準,只有當相關構成要件是在語意上包含或是屬於同一犯罪類型時,才能肯定共犯的成立,否則即屬現行法所不處罰的未遂參與。
英文關鍵詞: error as to the legal elements of the offence (Tatbestandsirrtum)intent (Vorsatz)intent alternative (dolus alternativus)inclusive relation (Einschlussverhältnis)exzess of accomplice (Exzess)
英文摘要: Under Interim New Criminal Law Article 13(c), when a defendant does differs from what he or she knows, the crime is judged according to the following; (1) What a defendant does is the same or more serious than what he or she knows, the crime is judged according to what he or she knows; (2) What a defendant does is lesser than what he or she knows, the crime is judged according to what he or she does. If we read and understand this rule according to the above words unlimitedly, it does not suit our judicial review system today. We can easily know why the result is improper, when a defendant does not know the subject of guilt relief, and not equivalent to elements of error and elements of negative errors occur at the same time.
In fact, we can apply what a defendant knows, and what a defendant does rule to classify cases into two catagories according to whether a defendant commits a crime infringing the same essence of legal interest. The two catagories are errors occurring between crimes with different essence and the same essence. When errors occur between crimes with different essence, what a defendant does cannot only be judged by a minor crime unless elements of the crimes are similar to inclusion in a case. In this kind of situation, the defendant knows shall constitute an attempted crime and what he or she does shall constitute a negligent crime. When errors occur between crimes with the same essence, because objective facts and subjective knowledge overlap each other, what a defendant does shall be judged as a minor, intentional and completed crime. However, to judge illegal facts adequately, when a defendant does going beyond what a defendant knows or a defendant knows going beyond what a defendant does, it sh all still constitute an attempt or a negligent crime. To sum up, what a defendant knows, and what a defendant does rule cannot be a standard to solve error cases.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、侵害異種法益之罪名間的錯誤
參、侵害同種類法益之罪名間的錯誤
一、語意上處於包含關係的構成要件
(一)減輕構成要件與基本構成要件
(二)加重構成要件與基本構成要件
(三)具排他互斥形式的構成要件
二、屬同一犯罪類型的構成要件
(一)形式推演所造成的評價矛盾
(二)其他的相類案例
(三)犯罪類型同一性的證立
(四)所知重於所犯的情形
肆、發生在犯罪參與者之間的錯誤
一、實務見解
二、類型化的分析
(一)存在於語意上包含或異類之構成要件間的錯誤
(二)存在於同類但非語意上包含之構成要件間的錯誤
伍、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
    返回功能列