犯罪競合中的法益同一性判斷

The Judgment on the Legal Interest's Consistency in Competitions of Crime

我國刑法中“特別法惟輕”的法條競合現象，的確有部分是因為錯將想像競合當作法條競合造成的。區分法條競合與想像競合的實質標準是法益同一性。屬於同類法益的具體法益之間未必具有同一性，而不屬於同類法益的具體法益之間也未必不具有同一性。當判斷競合關係涉及侵害複合法益的犯罪時，不能忽視必要保護之次要法益，次要法益與它罪法益亦可能具有法益同一性；不能混淆次要法益與附隨法益，誤將附隨法益當作次要法益，將導致法條競合現象的不當擴張。法益是否同一除考慮法益性質和內容外，也受制於法益保護範圍和程度，即保護相同法益，但保護程度或範圍存在輕重大小之別的條文之間，亦可認為法益不同一，而成立想像競合。

In our criminal law the punishment of the special article is lighter than the common article, probably because we mistake 'imaginative joinder of offenses' as 'overlapping of legal provisions'. The substantive distinction between these two terms lies in the consistency of legal interests. Two specific legal interests under same legal interest category may not share something in common, and two specific legal interests category may be identical. In judging the competing relationship about the crimes which damages complex legal interests, we cannot ignore to protect the secondary legal interests, which and the legal interests of other crimes may also be identical. We cannot confuse the secondary legal interests with stochastic legal interests. Mistaking stochastic law interests as secondary legal interests will lead to the improper expansion of 'overlapping of legal provisions'. To judge the consistency of legal interests, we should take into account both the legal interests' properties and contents and the scopes and extents, if there are differences in the scopes and extents. Possibilities are that 'imaginative joinder of offenses' are constituted.