論幫助犯的歸責基礎：走出中性幫助的迷霧

The Reconstruction of Attribution Elements in Accessory

本文探討幫助犯的歸責議題，其中一般幫助的歸責要件在客觀與主觀上都有疑慮，實務與學說在客觀要件都沒有提出可以有效建立與判斷幫助行為本質或是幫助行為與正犯行為之間的不法關聯，促進公式或是具備因果關係的升高風險，結果判斷上皆顯恣意；主觀要件則因為對應客體的混淆，造成邏輯上的疑慮。
中性幫助方面，臺灣實務並沒有統一的中性幫助概念，歸責要件也欠缺完整性；德國實務雖有穩定見解，但因為欠缺明確的客觀要件，導致處理上必須單獨仰賴主觀要件決定可罰，相關學說討論也未提出合理的主張。為解決中性幫助難題，必須回歸一般幫助的討論，原因在於中性幫助其實只是凸顯一般幫助歸責的不足之處，因此若要適切評價中性幫助，應該處理一般幫助的歸責問題。
因此，本文從一般幫助犯的討論建立出新的歸責想法與要件，刑事可罰的幫助行為，係指其單向提供足以改變正犯犯罪計畫並因此提升整體犯罪風險的行為；相對的，若協助行為僅是填補原初正犯犯罪計畫的條件，則不屬於刑事可罰的幫助行為，仍屬法律所容許的風險。

This article examines the concept of general and neutral assistance. At present, both the objective and subjective criteria for liability of general assistance elicit ambiguity. For objective criteria, both legal practice and literature encounter challenges in establishing efficient criteria not only for objectively identifying the unlawful nature of aiding acts but also for establishing the causation between aiding acts and the principal offense. The determinations appear to be arbitrary, regardless of whether they focus on facilitating elements in legal practices or increased risk associated with a causal relationship. And for the subjective criteria, the inappropriate combination of the object of intention leads to a logical problem.
Regarding the concept of neutral assistance, there is no unified definition or comprehensive criteria for determining liability in Taiwan. On the contrary, the legal practices in Germany exhibit a relatively stable opinion; however, concerns arise due to the absence of precise objective criteria, leading to the consequence, that the judgement of liability relies solely on subjective criteria. Furthermore, the prevailing theory also fails to propose logical interpretations for neutral assistance. The challenges raised by neutral assistance require a critical review of the liability discussion of general assistance. This is because neutral assistance only exposes the problems within the criteria for attributing liability in cases of general assistance. Therefore, for a proper assessment of neutral assistance, it is important to address the issues related to the attributive liability discussion of general assistance.
Consequently, this article presents new attributive perspectives and criteria that result from an examination of the liability of general assistance theory. Criminally punishable liability involves aiding actions that unilaterally provide the possibilities of modifying the criminal plan of the principal offender, thereby increasing the overall criminal risk. If the aiding actions merely fulfill the initial criminal plan conditions, they do not qualify as criminally punishable aiding actions and remain within the legally permitted realm of acceptable risk.