| 摘要: | 早期之犯罪，泰半祇要行為人身手矯健，即可單獨遂行犯罪，人多反易壞事，惟時至今日，反演變成，必也數人協力分工後，始得完成犯罪之計劃，因此，各國立法者於察覺此情事後，遂開始針對前述犯罪之方式與態樣亦即「犯罪參與之現象」，斟酌是否以增修法律以為因應。
按時下對於犯罪參與之現象，應可歸納為二種立法例，即有認為數人犯罪時，由於各該行為人參與犯罪之態樣，於刑法上之罪質或科刑上均有不同，從而應區分其處理方式。另則主張，因數人犯罪中各該人於犯罪實現上均為等價，故無可在本質上將參與犯罪態樣予以區分，從而應將個別參與之程度，轉至刑罰科刑上加以審酌，其中學理上將前者稱作「二元犯罪參與體系」，並將後者命為「一元犯罪參與體系」，此二體系固均有見地，惟各該體系是否在於個案操作上堅守其立場，則有待進一步探討。
於檢討前揭體系之當否時，本文擇共同正犯何以經立法者評價為「共同正犯」，並要求各該行為人皆須對「全部結果」負責之法理切入。而在剖析共同正犯何以須共同歸責之法理可知，無論學理或實務上以「共同性」、「正犯性」或「共同正犯本身之定位」為說明，其旨均僅在解決，若貫徹「行為原則」及「個人責任原則」下，由於共同正犯之一人僅為一部行為，故僅需負擔一部責任，甚至在極端案例中無人須負擔該犯罪結果之不合理情形，遂不得不在實際個案上，各自違逆二元犯罪參與體系所提出「唯有共犯始有從屬性」之認知，及一元犯罪參與體系力持「犯罪參與現象應在刑罰論解決」之立場。
前述二元犯罪參與體系內部理論之不一致或矛盾，其導因乃將構成要件不當矮化與誤解之故，是，若學理上能確立「構成要件」及「法律要件」（或稱「法定要件」）要屬二事，以及刑法上行為最重要之功能或目的，在於確認各該行為人之行為，究竟是否使刑罰法規所欲保護之法益產生不當變動（即發生實害或危險）後，自可得出犯罪參與現象不應在犯罪論上特別做處理。又，如斯主張非謂本文即認同一元犯罪參與體系，蓋特定刑法議題倘若不宜在犯罪論上處理，非即應在刑罰論上為相關因應，而刑罰論議題之宏觀程度，遠超越本論文所能承載之量，無法以簡短幾句以做交代，當只能期待將來，充當日後自我惕勵之課業。
總之，本文主張，若遇有構成要件之實現，係出於複數行為人分工合作所致，乃至於數人參與犯罪之情形，其解決之順序有三：1、依據「無行為無犯罪」原則，在進入刑法評價之階段前，先行確認二元犯罪參與體系所稱之「正犯行為」，或一元犯罪參與體系所稱之「行為人之行為」，2、次依「行為人僅就個人行為負責」原則，獨自判斷各該行為人之所為，3、末依「犯罪乃不法且有責性之行為」之階層論，依序檢驗各該行為人是否成立犯罪。結論是，一人犯罪也好，數人犯罪也罷，刑法上皆毋須、也無庸修正任何刑法判斷犯罪上之相關原則。
Back in the old days, a criminal offence needs not too many to be made, but requires one man with strong and vigorous characteristic. In a modern society however, one must act collectively, and stress every means in order to achieve the goal in need. Despite that the cooperation of a criminal activity could be made in different ways and various kinds of participation possibilities, Questions for the legislators around the globe are how should a perpetrator be liable for his criminal action in a collective context?
Two varieties of approach were sought to determine how a perpetrator should be seen liable while participating in a collective criminal activity – the dualistic system of participation and the monistic system of participation. The former stands in the point where each individual are only liable according to the type of criminal offence they participate in a collective action, since each offences are enacted in different categories of guilt and penalties; while the later argues that the participant should be liable for the collective consequence of crime, according to their degree of relative involvement.
By introducing the concept of Joint principle offenders in criminal law, this article tends to point out the conflict underlined between the rationale of Joint principle offenders with dualistic and monistic system of participation.
The contradiction between the two models lies in the misunderstanding of the element of crime. Considering the difference of criminal element and statutory element, and the idea and purpose of criminal law – which is to lay down a certain body, regulating certain conduct proscribing certain objective, the collective sphere of criminal action should not be a reason to amend criminal statue.
This article argues that, before dealing with issue concerning the sentence of crime or punishment, one must question whether it is a problem to solve by criminal law or not. Moreover, This article does not deal with the debate on punishment in the collective context, due to the board coverage of the Issue's, which is indeed a worthy field for future development.
Nonetheless, this article suggests that when the elements of crime “Tatbestandsmäßigkeit” are met in the collective context, three steps of examination are useful in solving this legal dilemma: 1. The “no action requires no guilt” principle should be applied either in a dualistic or monistic approach 2. Determine each perpetrator by their criminal offence under the rule of behavior 3. A criminal guilt could be determined without examining the test of criminality “Rechtswidrigkeit”and obligatory “Schuld” in the three stage test. In conclusion, this article argues that no amendment of criminal law needs to be made either in the case of and individual or collective criminal offence. |
