不作為正犯與共犯之區分：實踐發現與理論形塑

Distinguishing Perpetrator from Accomplice in inaction-joint Offense: Judicial Practice and Theoretical Model

依照基礎立場－核心概念－根本主張三個維度，不作為正共犯區分理論可周延性地類型化為原則幫助犯陣營、原則正犯陣營和具體判斷（義務區分）陣營；迄今為止各陣營提出的理論都存在明顯的缺陷。以三個理論維度檢視我國司法判決，可確定義務區分陣營與我國司法實踐的親緣性。應提倡面向法益侵害的義務區分理論，即以義務與法益的關聯方式和程度為標準，確定義務人在因果流程中所應起的作用大小，進而區分正共犯。一般規則是，以各義務類型在因果流程中所應處的位置預判義務人的作用大小；特殊規則是，在先前行為的場合，應以先前行為本身對法益侵害結果的貢獻程度來確定正共犯。

According to three dimensions of basic position, core concept and basic holding, the doctrines of distinguishing perpetrator from accomplice in inaction-joint offense fall into three types, the general-accomplice theory, the general-perpetrator theory and the duty-oriented theory. in these three theory schools, all the doctrines bear obvious defects. By applying the theoretical dimensions to domestic judicial practice, this paper finds it fits into the duty-oriented category. This paper upholds a legal interest-decided, duty-oriented doctrine, which means the way and degree the legal interest and the duty related is the key point to distinguish perpetrator from accomplice in inaction-joint offense. The general rule is that the roles different types of duties played in the causal process determine the contribution the subject of the legal duty makes to legal interest infringement, so that perpetrator and accomplice can be distinguished. When it comes to the duty derived from ''prior act'', an exceptional rule takes place, which considers the infringement the prior act made in the causal process as the criterion.