過失犯中結果回避可能性的混淆與辨異

在過失犯領域，有四個不同的理論點被冠以“結果回避可能性”的名號，分別是裸的行為意義上的結果回避可能性、不可抗力意義上的結果回避可能性（結果回避義務意義上的結果回避可能性）、條件關係意義上的結果回避可能性、合義務替代行為意義上的結果回避可能性。所謂裸的行為意義上的結果回避可能性並不符合結果回避可能性的含義。不可抗力意義上的結果回避可能性是過失犯的一個要素，其體系位置和理論功能隨著過失犯的理論變遷而發生變化。假定因果關係不影響結果不法，但是在部分案件中會影響行為不法。合義務替代行為理論位於風險實現階段，旨在解決法所容許的風險與法所禁止的風險交織在一起的案件的風險實現問題，其與假定因果關係是兩種不同的理論點。在欠缺結果回避可能性的案件中，通過依次考察行為人的身體舉止有無可支配性、行為人有無違反注意義務以及法益所面臨的風險狀況，可以準確判斷出該案欠缺的是何種結果回避可能性。

In the field of negligent crimes, there are four different theories labelled as ''the possibility of avoiding the consequence''. They are the possibility of avoiding the consequence in the sense of pure behavior, the possibility of avoiding the consequence in the sense of force majeure, the possibility of avoiding the consequence in the sense of conditional relationship, and the possibility of avoiding the consequence in the sense of legitimate alternative behavior. The so called possibility of avoiding the consequence in the sense of pure behavior does not conform to the meaning of the possibility of avoiding the consequence, while the other three theories conform to its meaning. The possibility of avoiding the consequence in the sense of force majeure is one of the elements of negligent crimes. Its systemic position and theoretical function change with the change of the theory of negligent crime. The hypothetical causality cannot affect the result illegality, but it can affect the behavior illegality in some cases. The theory of legitimate alternative behavior is located in the stage of result illegality. Its function is to solve the problem of risk realization in cases where the risks permitted by law and those prohibited by law are intertwined. It is different from the hypothetical causality. In cases where there is no possibility of avoiding the consequence, we can accurately tell what kind of the possibility of avoiding the consequence is lacked by examining whether the actor's physical behavior is controllable, whether the actor violates the duty of care, and the risk situation faced by legal interests.