法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論故意之不法前行為所建構的保證人義務(Guarantor’s Criminal Responsibility, Based on His Illegal Previous Act)
編著譯者: 蔡聖偉
出版日期: 2006.12
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 18 卷 第 2 期 /141-169 頁
頁  數: 30 點閱次數: 141
下載點數: 120 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 蔡聖偉
關 鍵 詞: 不純正不作為犯危險前行為保證人地位故意違法之前行為後隨之不作為中止未遂期待可能性不自證己罪原則
中文摘要: 無論是在德國還是在台灣,實務與學界通說均承認危險前行為這種保證人類型。而在行為人於前行為的階段便已具有招致實害結果之故意的情形,此一故意所為的前行為是否也會建構刑法上的作為義務,學說上則有不同的看法。本文首先透過實例來說明,這裡所涉及的並非只是純理論的討論,而是有其實務上的意義。其次,基於評價上舉輕明重的推論以及行為規範的堅持等理由,本文採取與德國通說相同的立場,認為出於故意所為的危險前行為亦應建構刑法上的作為義務。如此的看法,並不會與現行法上關於中止未遂的規定以及刑事訴訟法上的不自證己罪原則有所衝突。最後,採取如此的立場也讓法律適用者能夠更精確、更充分地評價整體犯行的不法及罪責內涵;因為在例外的情形,後隨之不作為犯的不法或罪責內涵還是有可能會高於前階段的作為犯。
英文關鍵詞: Non-Genuine Omission (unechtes Unterlassungsdelikt)Previous Act WhichCreated The Dangerous Condition (ingerenz) Status of Guarantor (Garantenstellung)Previous Willful Act (vorsätzlich-rechtswidriges Vorverhalten)The Following Omission (das nachfolgende Unterlassen)Adandonment of Attempt (Rücktritt)Reasonableness (Zumutbarkeit)The Right Against Self-Incrimination (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare)
英文摘要: Many scholars in Germany and Taiwan recognize the type of guarantor’s position resulted from his previous act which created a dangerous condition (Ingerenz). When the actor performs his previous act with the intention to cause a harmful result, scholars have different opinions on whether this previous willful act will impose the actor a duty to act. In the beginning, this paper provides different examplecases to show that this topic has its practical values, in addition to the theoretical values. Secondly, based on behavioral norms and argumentum a fortiori, this paper agrees with many German professors voting for the attitude that the previous willful act should impose the actor a duty to act. This conclusion will not contradict to laws related to “abandonment of attempt” or the criminal procedure principle of “the right against self-incrimination”. As a result, people who apply the law can more precisely and adequately evaluate the wrong and the criminal responsibility, because in the exceptional situ ation, the wrong or criminal responsibility of the following omission could be more unacceptable than the previous willful act.
目  次: 壹、問題的提出
貳、釐清此問題的實益
參、學說看法
肆、立場的選擇
  一、危險前行為與刑法上的作為義務
  二、避免評價矛盾
  三、對於行為規範效力的堅持
  四、與中止未遂的規定相衝突?
    (一)賦予作為義務並非重複加重處罰
    (二)中止行為「自願性」的認定
    (三)故意作為犯的中止行為對於後隨不作為的意義
  五、因欠缺期待可能性而阻卻「罪責」?
    (一)欠缺期待可能性作為超法律的阻卻罪責事由?
    (二)牴觸不自證己罪原則?
伍、不作為殺人罪與消極遺棄罪
陸、作為與不作為的競合關係:保留充分評價犯行的彈性
柒、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列