过失犯的结果归责研究

发布时间：2018-05-21 04:36

本文选题：合法替代行为 + 容许风险　；参考：《厦门大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：在过失犯罪的领域中,行为人预见到其行为可能造成法益侵害的结果,并且违反了社会生活要求的避险规则,从而实现法益侵害。但是,就当时的情况看,即使行为人审慎地履行注意义务,法益侵害的结果仍然难以避免。此时,结果是否可以归责于行为人?在司法实践中通常的结论有：一、按照不可抗力处理,行为人无罪。二、按照过失犯罪处理,行为人有罪。案情类似,裁判结论却迥然不同,即使结论相同,裁判理由亦没有统一的思路和标准,丧失了刑法的公正性和均衡性。笔者认为,探讨过失犯的结果归责,不仅只是纯粹理论上的思辨,更有实际操作上的意义,亦能为推动刑法过失犯理论的精细化和深入化提供一个契机。本文通过考察德国、日本及我国台湾地区个案中判决结论的理论依据,逐一探讨结果回避可能性理论、相当因果关系理论、假定因果关系理论、风险升高理论等,反思其解释困境,尝试寻找解决过失犯结果归责的合理思路。本文认为,客观归责理论划清了因果问题与归责问题的界限,构建了更加精细化、规范化的过失犯体系。在客观归责理论的框架下,处理过失犯结果归责的思路是:首先,以合法替代行为构建假设因果流程。选择“合法替代行为”时,应参考两个标准：一是行为人的行动目的；二是最接近不容许风险、但仍在容许风险范畴内的行为方式。其次,考察假设因果流程中同一法益侵害结果是否仍会发生。如果不会发生,那么遵守注意义务就能有效地回避法益侵害,行为人成立过失犯罪；如果仍会发生,那么遵守注意义务就不能有效地回避法益侵害,应直接否定行为人成立过失犯,或者依据“罪疑唯轻原则”否定行为人成立过失犯；最后,应考察影响结果归责的其他事由,包括风险制造阶段的容许风险、风险实现阶段的规范保护目的。
[Abstract]:In the field of negligent crime, the perpetrator foresees that his behavior may result in legal interest infringement and violate the rules of avoiding risks required by social life, thus realizing the legal interest infringement. However, in the case at that time, even if the perpetrator performs the duty of care prudently, the result of legal interest infringement is still unavoidable. At this point, can the outcome be attributed to the perpetrator? The common conclusions in judicial practice are as follows: first, according to force majeure, the perpetrator is innocent. Second, according to the negligence of the crime, the perpetrator is guilty. Even if the conclusion is the same, there is no uniform idea and standard for the reason of the judgment, which loses the fairness and balance of the criminal law. The author believes that the discussion of the result imputation of negligent crime is not only a pure theoretical speculation, but also a practical and practical significance, and can also provide an opportunity to promote the refinement and deepening of the theory of negligent crime in criminal law. By examining the theoretical basis of the conclusion in the cases of Germany, Japan and Taiwan, this paper discusses the theory of the possibility of outcome avoidance, the theory of equivalent causality, the theory of hypothetical causality, the theory of increased risk, etc. Rethinking its explanation predicament, trying to find a reasonable way to solve the result imputation of negligent offender. This paper holds that objective imputation theory draws a clear line between causality and imputation, and constructs a more detailed and standardized system of negligent offenders. Under the framework of objective imputation theory, the way to deal with the result imputation of negligent offender is as follows: first, construct the hypothetical causality process with legal substitute behavior. When choosing "lawful substitute behavior", two criteria should be taken into account: one is the action purpose of the actor, the other is the behavior mode which is closest to the impermissible risk, but is still within the scope of the allowable risk. Secondly, we investigate whether the same benefit infringement will still occur in the causal process. If it does not happen, then compliance with the duty of care can effectively avoid the infringement of legal interests and the perpetrator establishes a negligent crime; if it still occurs, then compliance with the duty of care will not effectively evade the infringement of legal interests. We should directly deny the perpetrator to establish negligent crime, or deny the actor to establish negligent crime according to the principle of "suspect only minor"; finally, we should investigate other reasons that affect the result of imputation, including the allowable risk in the stage of risk manufacture. The purpose of normative protection in the stage of risk realization.
【学位授予单位】：厦门大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】