保證人地位事實論的重構與應用

對於保證人地位的界定標準，我國存在規範論與事實論的對立。規範論存在缺陷而不應被採納，事實論的理論進路尚存困境，亟待重構。立基於不真正不作為犯在歸因上的開放式與歸責上的主體限縮式結構，以我國刑法分則條文中的選擇身份為參照點，能夠析出「基於選擇而事前現實地支配法益」這一保證人地位界定標準。在理論上，該標準能夠明確界分作為犯、不真正不作為犯、真正不作為犯三者，且能夠解決圍繞先行行為所產生的理論爭議;在實踐上，該標準有助於我國在審判中做到罪刑相適應，且能夠合理區分不作為的參與形態。

For the defining standard of guarantor's status, there has been an adversarial relationship between the normative theory and the factual theory in China. Through reflection, the normative theory with flaws is considered to be unadoptable, and the theoretical approach of the factual theory is still in a dilemma with the requirements of reconstruction. Based on the diversity of attribution and the subject limitation of imputation represented in the non-real omission, the defining standard of guarantor's status that translates into the prior and realistic domination over the legal interest based on the choice can be deduced by taking the selective identities in the provisions of the criminal law of China as the reference point. Theoretically, this standard is not only capable to clearly distinguish between the act as a crime, the non-real omission crime, and the real omission crime, but also competent to resolve the theoretical controversy surrounding the antecedent act. Practically, the standard is helpful for China's legal system that seeks the achievement of proportionality of crime and punishment in the trial, and enables a reasonable distinction to be made between the forms of participation by omission.