危險現實化評價的類型構造

必須回溯至結果歸責評價的法理基礎，才能克服危險現實化理論的結構性缺陷。預防論和報應論提供了危險現實化理論的法理基礎，兩者統一於對現實因果流程的支配或利用可能性。根據支配或利用因果流程方式的不同，危險現實化可被劃分為直接、間接以及混合的危險現實化。在直接的危險現實化中，作為預見對象的是實行行為的危險性。行為主體預見到自然介入因素，可直接肯定間接的危險現實化；當介入因素是人的行為時，只有決定行為選擇的自由意思能被忽略不計，才可以肯定間接的危險現實化。對非同一主體創設的混合的危險現實化，具有作為義務者能回避結果發生時，原則上應將結果歸責於介入行為；對同一主體創設的混合危險現實化評價，不受累積因果關係和疑罪從無原則的影響。

In order to overcome the structural deficiencies of the theory of risk actualization, it is necessary to return to the legal basis of the Erfolgszurechnung. The Prevention Theory and the Retribution Theory provide the legal basis of the theory of risk actualization. And both theories are unified in the possibility of dominating and utilizing the actual causal process. According to the different ways in which actors use causal processes, risk actualization can be categorized into direct, indirect and mixed types. In the direct risk actualization, the object to be foreseen is the risk of the behavior. The indirect risk actualization may be directly affirmed when the behavior subject foresees natural intervening factor. When the intervening factor is human behavior, the indirect risk can be affirmed only if the free will to decide the choice of behavior can be neglected. For the mixed risk actualization created by different behavior subjects, when the person with obligation can avoid the result by actively fulfilling the obligation, the result should be attributed to the person. As to the mixed risk realization created by the same behavior subject, the result should be attributed to the behavior subject in spite of cumulative causationor suspicion of crime.