教唆故意的基本構造及具體展開

Basic Structure and Concrete Expansion of Instigation Intention

圍繞教唆故意的成立是否需要教唆者對構成要件結果具有認識，存在單一故意說與雙重故意說的爭論，其中雙重故意說更具合理性。按照雙重故意說的推論，在結果犯的場合，未遂教唆不具有可罰性，因其欠缺教唆故意。在具體危險犯及實行未終了的抽象危險犯的場合，教唆者如果對具體危險的不出現或抽象危險犯中實行不可能終了具有確信，則不成立教唆故意。在目的犯教唆的場合，對於與法益有關的目的，教唆者需要認識到實行者具有該目的及本身具有該目的方成立教唆犯。對於與法益無關的目的，教唆者只需要對實行者具有特定目的有認識就可成立教唆故意。在有故意無目的的工具場合，不應當把實行者具有特定目的的認識作為教唆者教唆故意的內容。

Centering on whether instigation intention including cognition of constitutive result of practicing offender, there are two types of controversies in this issue: single intention and double intention. Based on principle of legal interest and restriction of punishment scope, considering that all punitive offenders should have legal interest infringement and taking compromise provoking theory as the foundation of instigator punishment, the double intention theory is more reasonable. For consequential offense and concrete potential damage offense and uncompleted abstract potential damage offence, there is not penalization for the attempted solicitation. About the purpose related to legal interest, instigators should have purpose and cognition of perpetrator purpose. About the purpose unrelated to legal interest, instigators only need to have cognition of perpetrator purpose without need to have purpose. In the situation of intentional and no purpose tool, cognition of perpetrator purpose should not be taken as content of instigation intention.