不真正不作為犯：德日的差異演進及中國的後發式研究

德日兩國在不真正不作為犯的合法性根據上產生分歧；這一分歧在各自立法和司法實踐的催化下被加倍放大，導致兩國對不真正不作為犯的功能定位形成對立，進而對不真正不作為犯教義學展開差異建構；兩國在作為和不作為的區分、保證人和因果關係的認定等方面存在顯著的區別。和德日相比，我國對不真正不作為犯的研究屬於「後發式」研究，學界、司法和立法三方之間缺乏長期互動探討，這是我國不作為犯功能性定位缺失、教義學研究滯後之肇因。應對相關司法判決進行整體研究，發掘「普遍的價值取向」，通過考察不真正不作為犯適用規模和法官對該類犯罪的處罰態度來「反推」我國不真正不作為犯的功能定位，並以此指導我國教義學建構。

"The legitimacy basis of the commission by omission crime is divergent between Germany and Japan. This divergence is magnified by their legislation and judicial practices, which leads to the opposition of functional positioning in the commission by omission crime, and further construct different doctrines. There are significant differences in the distinction between act and omission, identification of Garantenstellung, and causality between the two countries. Compared with Germany and Japan, the study of the commission by omission crime in China has been a late comer. The interaction and discussion among academia, judicature and legislature has been lacking for a long time, causing absence of functional positioning and stagnation of theoretical research in the commission by omission crime. We should con-duct an overall investigation of the relevant judicial decisions to reveal the ''universal value orientation''. The functional positioning of the commission by omission crime in China can be reversely inferred through its application scale and judges' attitudes towards its punishment, in order to guide the doctrinal development."