法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 容許事實懷疑(Doubt on the Existence of Justification Facts (Erlaubnistatsachenzweifel))
編著譯者: 蔡聖偉
出版日期: 2012.12
刊登出處: 台灣/臺北大學法學論叢第 84 期 /287-342 頁
頁  數: 55 點閱次數: 298
下載點數: 220 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 蔡聖偉
關 鍵 詞: 容許事實懷疑(容許構成要件懷疑)阻卻違法事由容許構成要件主觀阻卻違法要素可能性想像預測性要素間接(未必)故意阻卻違法故意容許構成要件錯誤
中文摘要: 無論行為人的懷疑心態(可能性想像)發生在哪個犯罪審查階層的主觀要件上,所圍繞的核心問題都是:他應該如何處理這個風險認知?在怎樣的條件下他應該要放棄他的行為?發生在阻卻違法事由前提事實的懷疑,本文稱之為「容許事實懷疑」,這是一種存在於行為人主觀面的現象,與客觀上是否存有阻卻違法事實是分屬不同層次的兩個問題。在客觀上存有阻卻違法事實的情形,倘若可能性想像能夠滿足主觀阻卻違法要素的要求,便會形成阻卻違法的效果;若否,則要適用「反面容許構成要件錯誤」的規則來處理。反之,如果客觀上並沒有阻卻違法之事實,則只有當可能性想像能夠滿足主觀阻卻違法要素的要求時,才會形成「容許構成要件錯誤」。
有鑑於阻卻違法要素在性質上的差異,處於容許事實懷疑狀態的行為人主觀上對於阻卻違法事實的可能性想像,是否仍能符合主觀阻卻違法要素的要求,無法一概而論,必須根據這個可能性想像所涉及的要素性質來
區別處理。如果懷疑所涉及的阻卻違法要素含有推測(可能性判斷)的成分,而行為人主觀上所想像的事實亦可建構相關的可能性判斷,便可滿足該阻卻違法要素在主觀面的要求。反之,如果懷疑所涉及的要素不含推測成分,那麼行為人主觀上就必須對其前提事實的存在具有確切的認知(明知、確信),隨而,可能性想像就無法滿足該阻卻違法事由在主觀面的要求。縱使如此,處於懷疑的行為人最後也還是有可能在罪責審查階層中獲得寬恕。
英文關鍵詞: ErlaubnistatbestandszweifelErlaubnistatbestandsubjektives RechtfertigungselementMöglichkeitsvorstellungdolus eventualisErlaubnistatbestandsirrtum
英文摘要: No matter the perpetrator's doubt (possible imagination) is occurred in which criminal review level, the issues surrounding the core are: How should he deal with this risk perception? Under what condition should he give up his act? The doubt that occurred in the premise of justification is called “doubt on the existence of justificaiton facts”, which is a matter of prepetrator’s subjective intent, and should be discussed separately from whether there exists justification fact objectively. When the justification fact exists objectively, and the possible imagination can satisfy the subjective matter of the justification, it can be a defense. However, if the possible imagination can’t satisfy the subjective element of the justification, it would constitute a negative mistake of justification facts. When the justification fact does not exist objectively, it would constitute a mistake of justification facts only when the possible imagination can satisfy the subjective element.
Due to the nature difference of justification’s elements, the nature of the element involved will be the basis to determine whether the perpetrator’s subjective possible imagination can satisfy the subjective element of the justification. If the element that doubted includs speculation (possibility), and the facts imagined by the prepetrator can establish the possibility that required, it can satisfy the subjective matter of the justification. On the other hand, if the element that doubted does not include speculation, then possible imagination would not satisfy the subjective matter of the justification, and the prepetrator need to be certain (knowingly, certainly) about the premise of the justification. Even so, guilt of the prepetrator in doubt is still possible to be eventually negated in the responsibility level.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、可能性想像
參、統一處理的途徑
一、取決於客觀事實?
二、全然肯定主觀阻卻違法意思:間接阻卻違法故意?
三、全然否定主觀阻卻違法意思:間接整體不法故意?
肆、區別處理的途徑
一、取決於個案利益衡量?
二、依阻卻違法事由之性質區分?
伍、本文立場
一、含有推測性質的阻卻違法要素
(一)對於主觀認知的要求
(二)具體個案中的利益衡量
二、不含推測性質的阻卻違法要素
(一)對於主觀認知的要求
(二)「轉換」的可能性
三、其他的要求?
(一)釐清事實的義務?
(二)決定強制?
四、寬恕或減輕罪責的可能性
五、特別規定:刑法第 21 條第 2 項(明知條款)
陸、總結
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列