中止犯法理基礎之檢討與重建

Reflection upon the Reasoning of Withdrawal from Crime

觀察我國刑法學者對於中止犯學理的說明，雖然大致都會提到兩個 主要的部分：一是開宗明義地指出中止犯獲得刑罰寬免的法理基礎；二 是中止犯在適用上的諸多成立要件，尤其是主觀上的任意性與客觀上的 中止行為。然而，這其中一直存在兩個重大疑問：首先，中止犯在我國 的法律效果為減免其刑，而在德國則為免刑，此一不同之處是否意味著 兩國中止犯的法理基礎有所差異，這一點未獲國內多數意見正面回應， 成為有待釐清的謎團。其次，中止犯獲得寬免的法理基礎與其成立要件 兩者之間的關連為何？這些學理上的疑義實有必要逐一釐清，而且必須 進一步深入探討的是，中止犯之法理基礎與未遂犯處罰基礎之間，處於 何種關係？ 本文試圖指出，在我國中止犯的法理基礎與未遂犯處罰基礎似乎是 兩個無關的領域。其實，我國法與德國法之間的不同，不在於中止犯法 律效果上的差異，而毋寧在於未遂犯之理論基礎，我國自 2006 年修法 後採取客觀未遂理論，與德國主觀未遂及印象理論傳統分道揚鑣，此一 出發點上的重要差異，將會推導出對於中止犯不同的思考。

By reviewing the existing literature of criminal law, there is little attention paid to the research of withdrawal from crime. Much of the studies related to withdrawal from crime has included two key issues the reasoning of punishment reduction and constitutive elements, which frequently includes subjective arbitrariness and objectivebehaviors. However, there are two questions worth noting. Firstly, in the Taiwanese criminal law, withdrawal from crime can be granted the reduction of punishments while in the German criminal law it is found not guilty. This marked difference may imply that these two legal systems consider this issue in different ways. Secondly, in terms of punishment reduction of withdrawal from crime, what connects its reasoning with constitutive elements lacks explanation. Thus, this paper aims to further clarify these two questions by comparing the reasoning regarding attempts and withdrawal from crimes between the German and Taiwanese criminal law. The Taiwanese criminal law tends to regard the relationship between attempt and withdrawal from crimesas irrelevant. The difference of withdrawal from crimes between Taiwanese and German criminal law is not the legal effect but the theoretical understanding of attempts. Since our criminal law adopted objective attempt theory after 2006, which distinguishes from subjective attempt theory and impression theory in the German criminal law, this has made a big difference to the understanding of withdrawal from crime.