刑事過失犯之判斷架構─ 以史蒂文生症候群案為反思對象

文化大學機構典藏 CCUR > 法學院 > 法律學系暨法律學研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/39754

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/39754

题名:	刑事過失犯之判斷架構─ 以史蒂文生症候群案為反思對象 Criminal Negligence: A Case Study
作者:	陳怡娟
贡献者:	法律學系
关键词:	過失犯過失犯理論犯罪階層體系過失犯判斷架構史蒂文生症候群案 Criminal Negligence Decision analysis Criminal judgment
日期:	2017
上传时间:	2018-05-03 10:28:33 (UTC+8)
摘要:	過失犯的判斷，如今以「行為是否存在能夠引起結果的疏失」為判斷之首要核心，此種方式造成了犯罪階層體系的混用，其帶來的影響除了「犯罪審查過程的繁冗、論述缺乏一致性、傳統型案件適用上的不一致」外，關於過失犯「判斷上的浮動」，更是使一般大眾憂心隨時吃上刑事官司的煩惱源頭，醫療案件除罪化的聲音亦屬此蝴蝶效應的其中一環。本文以七次審判的醫療案件─史蒂文生症候群案為開端，分析各審判決所使用的判斷方式、以及其所產生的判決結果，對目前所採取的過失犯判斷方式與架構提出疑問。隨著過失理論的更迭，刑法對於過失犯的譴責從「結果非價」往「行為非價」靠攏，但刑法對犯罪的處罰不僅僅是因為行為違法，更重要的是行為侵害了「刑法所保護的法益」。是以本文期望能以此為出發點，使過失犯的判斷架構也能以篩選出有「保護法益必要性」之違法行為為核心。如今的過失犯判斷架構，是刑法解釋學的演變所形成的，因此若想重新思考過失犯的判斷架構，需得重新確認過失概念的本質，並理解如今判斷過失犯的方式如何形成，背後的原因…等等。我國刑法第14條第1項定義過失：「行為人雖非故意，但按其情節應注意，並能注意，而不注意者，為過失。」與西元1919年德國刑法修正草案第14條，所定義之過失內涵甚為相似：「因情況上及個人人格之關係，應注意並能注意而未注意，致未預見其結果可能發生，處罰行為之成立事實；或認有其可能而信以為不致發生者，以過失論。」因此本文於第三章觀察自古日耳曼時期起對類似過失事件處理模式、相關規範與學說發展。經回顧，本文歸納出刑法對於過失犯的處罰，全繫於「大眾能否容忍行為人的此種忽視」作為處罰與否的核心。由於德國實施之現行刑法並未有過失概念的抽象一般性規範，仰賴學說理論填補過失概念的抽象與浮動性，故本文亦挑選三種不同的過失判斷架構作為觀察對象，期望能自各個判斷架構中分析出「判斷方式」對於過失概念塑造上的影響之處，以作為本文重新思考「過失案件判斷架構」的養分。基於上述刑事過失概念的本質探討以及我國現行刑法第14條條文的體系解釋與文義解釋，本文認為過失的判斷時點應回歸有責性階層，採用修正的舊過失論判斷過失犯。將構成要件事實先做實證意義的判斷，確立事件並非偶然發生之情事，再接下去討論行為的妥適性、與行為人之過失。 The core for judging criminal negligence nowadays is “whether the behavior existing remissness that would lead to the result.” This judging standard obscures the procedure of judging crime, coming with extending the proceeding of judging, lacking of consistency in opinion and not suitable for judging traditional cases. In addition, the unstable standard of judging criminal negligence distresses people about committing crime incautiously so that the decriminalization of this issue has been discussed through this butterfly effect. This article starts with a medical case that was related to Stevens-Johnson syndrome, which experienced seven trials. Analyzing the verdict, the results and the procedures of judgments from each trial. With the change of the theory for judging negligence, the condemnation in criminal law moves from “valuelessness of conduct”(Handlungsunwert) to “valuelessness of consequence”(Erfolgsunwert); however, the punishment of criminal code is not only due to the act is illegal, but it violats the legal interest that criminal code is protecting. Base on the point, screening the necessity of protecting legal interest should be considered in the core of judging crime. The nowadays judging structure of criminal negligence is formed by the evolution of hermeneutics in criminal law. Therefore, if the structure of judging criminal negligence should be reformed, the essence of negligence crime, the method today for judging negligence crime and the reason behind…etc. should be reconfirmed as well. According to paragraph 1, article 14 of the Criminal Code of Republic of China:“A conduct is considered to have been committed negligently if the actor is aware that his conduct would, but firmly believes it will not, accomplish the element of an offense,” which is similar to the application of the criminal code draft amendment from German. Because of this, some observation about the method of dealing with negligent criminals, rules that connected and some academic thesis through ancient Germanic period had been mentioned in Chapter three. Reviewing from the thesis, the punishments of negligent criminals in criminal code are based on whether “the public could tolerate the ignoring act from the actor.” Attribute to the criminal code in Germen do not define the negligence concept, they have to rely on academic thesis to support the abstract standard. There are three different judging structures as objects in this article, hoping that this study can give back through analyzing the influences of judging through these different structures. Based on the essence discussion about criminal negligence and the definition for criminal code of our nation, this study advocates that the timing of judging criminal negligence should step back to the culpable stratum, judging with the old theory of criminal negligence. Define elements of crimes to confirm that the act is not sporadic, then, discuss the propriety and the negligence of actor.
显示于类别:	[法律學系暨法律學研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	81	检视/开启

检视Licence

在CCUR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

数据加载中.....