不作為犯等價性要件的學理檢視

我國既往觀點對不真正不作為犯的等價性要件之論述存在諸多誤區。這具體表現為，罔顧“等價”和“等置”的概念之差將二者混為一談，抑或無視等價性要件的初始意涵而盲目對其賦予了可獨立擔負起限定不作為犯處罰範圍的機能。基於對狹義等價性要件的概念源流考略，其功能定位理應是于舉止關聯犯的場域對不作為是否具有匹配相應舉止不法的正犯性予以檢視。在後續理論發展中，等價性雖漸漸淪為了徒有要件之名而無要件之實的思維方式，但仍可在涉及以背反舉止方式而實現的情報傳播犯以及不作為的參與等問題中為我國司法實務提供一個嶄新視角。

There are many misunderstandings in previous research on the equivalence of criminal omissions. This is specifically manifested as conflating the difference between “equivalence”and“equalization”, or ignoring the initial meaning of the equivalence element and assigning it independent responsibility to limiting the scope of criminal omissions. Based on this research, the equivalence element’s functional positioning should be to examine whether the omission has the principal offense that matches the corresponding illegality in the field of behavior-related crime. In the follow-up theoretical development, although equivalence has gradually reduced to a mode of thinking, it can still be involved in issues such as information transmission crimes and provides a new perspective on judicial practice.