抽象危險犯的解構與重構

The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Abstract Offence of Endangerment

我國立法者近年來大量運用抽象危險犯制定新法，引發學說或實務無法完全解決的適用爭議。為了體系性地解決抽象危險犯的問題，本文重新耙梳德國重要學說見解，發現已有從過去抽象危險犯作為單一危險犯型態的看法，逐漸走向合併觀察保護法益與犯罪結構的方式，將抽象危險犯予以分類、各自找尋正當化基礎的趨勢，並肯認行為對法益的一般危險性應該是抽象危險犯的核心要素。基於此一趨勢，本文首先認為，於風險社會當中，刑法確實有必要在維護潛在行為人主體性的前提之下，某程度限制其風險操控能力。就此而言，抽象危險犯所要掌握的對象，將是行為人對於不容許的典型風險之決定與實行。而依據風險的個別性與社會性屬性，抽象危險犯也就可區別為保護個人與集體法益的類型，分別考慮其正當性與結構設計。尤其是從憲法層次的考量來看，抽象危險犯應該只能運用在掌握歸因複雜的個別性風險或者是針對體制性法益的侵害，因為唯有這2種情況是實害犯或具體危險犯難以發揮作用的狀況。此外，適性犯的構成要件結構作為規定形式，應該是最為符合適當性原則的手段。至於風險犯、預備犯或累積犯等3種文獻上曾討論的子類型，正當性都有所不足，其實際適用都需要進行限縮解釋。

In recent years, legislators in our country have extensively employed abstract offence of endangerment concepts in formulating new laws, which has led to controversies in application that neither legal doctrine nor practice can fully resolve. To systematically address the issues related to abstract offence of endangerments, this paper reexamines important scholarly perspectives from Germany. It is discovered that views on abstract offence of endangerments have shifted away from treating them as a singular type of crime in the past, towards merging considerations of protecting legal interests with criminal structures. There is a trend towards categorizing abstract offence of endangerments and seeking respective justifications for their bases. It is acknowledged that the general riskiness of behavior to legal interests should be considered a core element of abstract offence of endangerments.
Based on this trend, this paper firstly asserts that within a risk society, criminal law indeed needs to, under the premise of safeguarding the subjective autonomy of potential actors, to some extent limit their ability to manage risks. In this context, the subject matter that abstract offence of endangerment laws should address is the determination and implementation by individuals of typical risks that are impermissible. Depending on the individual and social attributes of risks, abstract offence of endangerments can be differentiated into types that protect individual and collective legal interests, respectively considering their legitimacy and structural design.
Especially from a constitutional perspective, abstract offence of endangerment concepts should only be applied in cases involving complex attribution of individual risks or harm to systemic legal interests, as these are the situations where specific harm offenders or concrete dangerous offenders struggle to be effective. Additionally, the constituent elements structure of offenses of suitability should serve as a regulatory form, most in line with the principle of appropriateness. As for the three subtypes discussed in the literature—risk offenses, preparatory offenses, or cumulative offenses—all lack sufficient legitimacy, and their practical application requires restrictive interpretations.