論過失不作為犯的「注意義務」與「作為義務」之關係──從「結果迴避義務」的理論發展談起

The Relationship between “The Duty of Act” and “The Duty of Care” in Negligent Omission: A Discussion Based on Theoretical Development of “The Duty of Eliminating Risky Result”

「作為義務」是不作為犯論的重要概念，其法源依據主要是來自於刑法第15條第1項「對於犯罪結果之發生，法律上有防止之義務，能防止而不防止者，與因積極行為發生結果者同」。通說與實務主要是以行為人是否有「保證人地位」，來判斷其在法律上有無防止犯罪結果發生的義務，進而確認是否應該把法益侵害歸責給行為人的不作為。而「注意義務」則是過失論的核心概念，其法源依據主要是來自於刑法第14條第1項「行為人雖非故意，但按其情節應注意，並能注意，而不注意者，為過失」。通說主要是以社會共同生活領域中的各種注意規則與安全規則，來判斷行為人是否有注意不讓法益侵害發生的義務，進而決定其行為是否應該被當成過失犯處罰。學說上有將注意義務更進一步的區分為「結果迴避義務」與「結果預見義務」的看法，亦有想以「客觀歸責」取代注意義務，或認為注意義務是客觀歸責基準的一部分的看法。

Traditionally, legal theory distinguishes omission and negligence by the difference between duty of act and duty of care. Therefore, if someone violates his legal duty to prevent harm to the society, his conduct will be regarded as omission; On the other side, if someone breaches the duty of care toward others his conduct will be regarded as negligence. This traditional distinguishment seems persuasive and clear. However, in practice, if someone’s behavior is negligent, he may not only violates the duty of act, but also the duty of care to the others simultaneously. Therefore, clarifying the relationship between those two duties is theoretically essential. The strategy I adopt to analyze this topic is comparing and analyzing theories related to this issue in Taiwan and Japan. By doing comparative law analysis, I come to the conclusion that if we divide duty of care into two categories─“eliminating risky result” and “foreseeability”, we must distinguish the duty of act from foreseeability, due to the reason that the objects between those two duties are different. Meanwhile, distinguishing the duty of act and “eliminating risky result” is redundant, because not only the object, but also the purpose of these two duties are the same.