加重結果犯之研究－－以歸責理論為中心

The Study on Aggravated-Result Offense－Focus on Imputation

系所名稱：法學院法律學系 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：105年 指導教授：李茂生 "加重結果犯存在之正當性，向來飽受質疑。特別是其法律效果上，為何能突破傳統競合規則，逕論以更為嚴苛的法定刑度，更是受到學界嚴厲的批評。本文嘗試先從加重結果犯的歷史發展脈絡，尋找其存在之正當化基礎，並嘗試從現代刑事法學的角度，重新詮釋加重結果犯之構造與歸責理論。藉由重新檢視加重結果犯的歷史發展脈絡，本文認為加重結果犯之處罰依據在於基本犯罪的特有危險性，學界稱之為「危險性說」。所謂「特有危險性」，係指行為人為基本犯罪時，蘊藏有造成重結果（死亡）的高度危險性，且該危險已達到難以控制之程度而言。然而，僅止於基本犯罪之特有危險，尚不足以建構加重結果犯之處罰依據。本文另外檢視了加重結果犯與責任原則間之關係，並主張行為人對於加重結果必須具備「有認識過失」，始足以支撐加重結果犯之主觀歸責基礎。據此，加重結果犯之處罰依據將係立基於過失要求下的危險性說，本文將之稱為「修正的危險性說」。在此觀點下，加重結果犯之構造，即非僅是故意與過失的複合型態而已，其是透過固有不法內涵（特有危險），將基本行為之故意與加重結果之過失緊密連結的一種獨立犯罪類型。加重結果犯之處罰依據與責任原則確立後，就加重結果犯客觀要件，本文從危險性說出發，並參考德國法的直接性理論以及日本法的學說見解，認為加重結果犯之成立，客觀上應符合「特有危險現實化」之要求。特有危險現實化，應以兩階段來理解：第一階段係基本犯罪是否具備特有危險的審查、第二階段則為特有危險是否現實化於加重結果的判斷。從而，個案中必須客觀符合特有危險現實化的兩階段檢驗，且主觀對於該特有危險現實化具備有認識過失的情況下，行為人始成立加重結果犯，此即為加重結果犯之歸責要件。至於特有危險現實化要件應如何套入個別加重結果犯規定的問題，應探詢該基本犯罪所設定之特有危險實現態樣為何，以及個案中基本犯罪是否具有侵害重結果所保護法益之高度危險性。因此，不同類型的加重結果犯在解釋上，其特有危險現實化的具體內容也會有所不同。本文將挑選數個具有代表性及討論價值的個別加重結果犯類型進行探討，說明如何將特有危險現實化之架構套用至具體條文規定。"

Justification for Aggravated-Result Offense has long be criticized. Especially in terms of its legal effect, the traditional Rule of Concurrence seems to be abandoned while harsher criminal punishment has been imposed. The work aims to seek for its justifying basis via the historical development, and to reinterpret its construction and attribution from the perspective of the contemporary criminal law studies. After exploring the historical development, the work considers the basis for punishment is its “inherent danger(spezifische Gefahr).” The inherent danger refers to the high risk of aggravated result (death) while the perpetrator commits the fundamental criminal offense, and such risk is beyond the possibility to control. Nevertheless, the mere inherent danger is not sufficient to construct the basis for punishment. The work examines the nexus between Aggravated-Result Offense and the principle of culpability, thus we claim that it is justified to maintain such offense only if the perpetrator is “negligent on an acknowledged basis” regarding the aggravated result. Accordingly, the basis to punish such offense stands on the danger with the requirement of negligence fulfilled. The work calls it “modified danger.” With this perspective, the construction of the Aggravated-Result Offense would no longer be the complex of intention and negligence. Rather, it is one independent type of offense which closely links the intention of the fundamental act to the negligence of the aggravated result.With the basis for punishment and the principle of culpability affirmed, the work starts to seek for the criteria of Aggravated-Result Offense beginning with the aforementioned danger. Referring to the German theory of direct nexus (unmittelbare Zusammenhang, Unmittelbarkeit) and relevant Japanese theories, the work considers that, for such Offense to be established, the “realization of inherit danger” requirement must be met objectively. The realization of inherit danger should be observed through two phases: first, the review of the existence of inherit danger, and second, the determination of the realization of such danger in aggravated result. Hence, in each case, the perpetrator may only establish Aggravated-Result Offense should the objective requirement of the two-phase review and the subject requirement of acknowledged negligence have been met. This is the attribution rule for Aggravated-Result Offense. As to how would the criteria of realization of inherit danger fit in each Aggravated-Result Offense, the type of realization of inherit danger set in each fundamental offense should be ascertained. Also, it should be ascertained whether such fundamental offense contain high risk of danger to infringe the legal interest protected by the aggravated result on ad hoc basis. Thus, different kinds of Aggravated-Result Offense contain different types of inherit danger. The work will discuss several cases so to illustrate how the structure of realization of inherit danger be applied to particular provisions.