規範理論觀點下的過失犯行（譯文）

Negligent Conduct from a Normative Theory Perspective

過失犯之成立以行為人違反注意義務為前提，然注意義務之違反應如何理解並建構在何處，時有爭議。本文嘗試從規範理論之觀點出發，認為注意義務雖可直接作為法益侵害之避免，但如此一來就無法標示出過失犯與故意犯之差別。故本文更為細緻地區分（原初）行為義務及（次級）注意義務，以界分故意犯與過失犯之實質差異，並且藉此駁斥其他規範理論論者的見解。確立此一前提後，本文進一步討論注意義務違反應依客觀標準而定，抑或是將行為人之個別能力納入判斷的議題。本文最終指出，主觀標準的適用對過失犯的不法同樣極為重要，而過失犯的罪責階層則是保留給潛在的不法意識。

Negligence is usually referred to as failure to exercise due diligence. However, the meaning and content of diligence are unclear. A norm of conduct can only be followed by those who recognize the consequences of their actions. Diligence now refers to recognizing the consequences of one’s own actions. In this respect, it must be strictly distinguished from the prohibition of infringing acts. Knowing the consequences of the action does not mean that the infringing act will not occur, but only that the perpetrator is now acting intentionally.