| 摘要: | 本論文共有六章，摘要如下
第一章：「緒論」
分有四節。首先論述本論文之研究動機。其次，受限於本文之能力、篇幅之限制和避免偏離主旨，本文無意深論存在論與規範論之關係；對於過失犯有無不法意識不論；犯罪階層論並非論述核心，亦不從犯罪階層論探討不法意識之定位。第三，則為論述順序。最後，在名詞選用時，為避免產生誤會，本文不採用違法性認識，使用不法意識。
第二章：「不法意識之內涵」
內有四節，討論主題有三。第一，不法意識之功能。不法意識應有確保刑事制裁實質上具有多數民意、符合罪刑法定之目的、使刑事制裁具有合理性和合理的法忠誠訓練之四大功能。第二，不法意識所認識之對象，僅限於刑事法規範。因為行為人僅對有刑法忠誠，但卻對民法有法敵對意志，並非不能想像，但既然是討論刑法之不法意識，就不能以對於其他法律的法敵對意志，代替對於刑法的法敵對意志。第三，不法意識之型態。既然不法意識為犯罪論之一環，則基於行為與不法意識同時存在原則，不法意識不能為潛在的不法意識，應僅能為現實的不法意識。
第三章：「不法意識和刑法第16條之沿革」
內有四節，討論主題有三。第一，對我國、日本、德國、英國和美國法律錯誤之沿革進行探究。關於法律錯誤之處理，不僅有故意理論和罪責理論，亦有不法意識不必要說或不知法不免責之理論。不知法不免責在近代刑法，不論東方和西方國家皆深受影響，我國既然為繼受法國家，亦當然受此影響，反映於我國刑法典之中。第二，對不知法不免責和罪責理論之反省。不知法不免責應係將不法意識定位於刑罰論中，因即便欠缺不法意識，行為人依然成立犯罪，至多可能減輕或免除其刑。此外，不知法不免責帶有國家威權色彩，也與現今社會環境不相容，並非適合作為處理法律錯誤之理論。此外，罪責理論亦有四種缺失，即違背罪責原則、亦帶有國家威權色彩、將過失犯當成故意犯處理和無法合理說明認識對象可以得出不同結果。第三，對現行刑法第16條之反省。從諸多角度觀察，我國刑法第16條應是繼受不知法不免責，而不可能繼受未來才變成德國通說的罪責理論，雖然現今多數學者和不少實務見解，認為我國刑法第16條自2005年修法後已採取罪責理論，但由於立法者未注意刑法第16條之沿革，故而僅做文字之修正，也無法從條文字解讀出現行刑法第16條已採取罪責理論，亦使得對於刑法第16條產生諸多爭執和誤會。
第四章：「從不法和罪責之演進論不法意識定位」
內有七節，目的在於從不法和罪責之演進論證不法意識之定位，可分為四個部分。第一，整理和分析不法和罪責之演進，通說認為犯罪行為應為不法且有罪責之行為，若認為不法意識為犯罪論之一環，就有必要先探究不法和罪責之內涵。第二，罪責應屬於刑罰論。從罪責之內涵觀之，罪責應係在探討，犯罪行為成立後，應如何妥當適用刑罰之問題，故而罪責應屬於刑罰論，而非犯罪論。第三，犯罪行為應為不法行為即為已足。從犯罪內涵觀察，僅有當行為人之行為構成要件該當並具有違法性時，其實就足以充分描述出犯罪行為，故而不法行為就等於犯罪行為。第四，不法意識應為主觀不法要素。從法敵對意志、合理的行為界線和合理的法秩序建立，皆得以證明不法意識應為主觀不法要素始足以充分表達主觀不法之內涵，故而不法意識應為主觀不法要素。
第五章：「釐清和定位後之運用」
分有四節，目的在於重新定位和釐清不法意識後之具體運用，可分為三個部分，第一，禁止錯誤。不法意識應為主觀之標準；造成難以忍受的處罰漏洞和行為人處分法秩序和不當優待法敵對與法盲目之人之主因不在於採取故意理論，而是在於採取心理式之不法意識；不法意識應與行為同時存在，否則制裁便無合理性；可否避免並不一定成為判斷行為人發生禁止錯誤時應如何處理之標準，即便認為不法意識應為故意之內涵，也不代表必定採取可否避免此一標準。第二，容許構成要件錯誤。發生容許構成要件錯誤之行為人應係欠缺現實不法意識，造成學理對於容許構成要件錯誤有諸多爭執之情形，應係由於堅時採取潛在不法意識、特定犯罪階層論和錯誤分類所導致。第三，由於已承認價值哲學和規範責任論，構成要件和違法性沒有分開的必要和道理。此外，不法意識亦應認定為主觀不法要素，犯罪階層論始能圓滿達成其創設目的。既然犯罪論和刑罰並不相同便應將屬於犯罪論者歸還犯罪論，屬於刑罰論者歸還刑罰論，藉此回應前述不法行為即屬於犯罪行為，罪責屬於刑罰論之說法。
第六章：「結論」
扼要整理歸納本論文之內容，並且提出本論文之研究心得和結論，即不法意識應為主觀不法之核心，不法意識應為主觀不法要素。
In Chapter One, introduce the motivation and order of discourse . Of this paper, limitations of space and avoidance of deviations from the gist, thus have not discussing the relationship between ontology and dualism, criminal negligence have consciousness of unlawfulness or not.
In Chapter Two, first of all in this paper to discussing function of consciousness of unlawfulness. The consciousness of unlawfulness should ensure that criminal sanctions essentially have majority public opinion and purpose of no penalty without a law.Then the object of consciousness of unlawfulness is limited to criminal code. Due to consciousness of unlawfulness and behavior are both exist at the same time, g consciousness of unlawfulness can not be potential ,it should be consciousness of unlawfulness as a reality.
In Chapter Three, it is discussing consciousness of unlawfulness and development of Criminal Law Article 16.There are explore the development of ignorance of the law, by legislation in Taiwan,Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, America. Regard the ignorance of the law not only the intention theory and the guilt theory, but also ignorance of law excuses no one in consciousness of unlawfulness. In addition,Criminal Law Article 16 should be inherited from Ignorance of law excuses no one, it is impossible to inherited from guilt theory,which is become the prevailing doctrine in Germany in the future.And ignorance of law excuses no one with the national authoritarian color, but also incompatible with the current social environment, is not suitable as a theory to deal with ignorance of the law.
In Chapter Four, there are location consciousness of unlawfulness from evolution of illegal and guilty.The guilty should belong to the penalty theory. From the perspective of the connotation of guilty, the guilty should be discussed, after to set up commit crime, and how to properly apply the question of punishment, so guilty should belong to the penalty theory, not the crime thoeory.Consciousness of unlawfulness should be the element of subjective iniquity. From the legal hostile, reasonable line of behavior and the establishment of a reasonable legal order, all can be proved that consciousness of unlawfulness should be the element of subjective iniquity,it enough to fully express the connotation of subjective iniquity,so consciousness of unlawfulness should be the element of subjective iniquity.
In Chapter Five, the purpose to position and clarify the specific application of consciousness of unlawfulness .First , prohibition mistake. Consciousness of unlawfulness should be the subjective standard; the main reason for creating an unbearable punishment loophole, the actor punishment law order and improper preferential Legal hostility and people to ignore law is not to take intention theory, but to adopt consciousness of unlawfulness in mind; both consciousness of unlawfulness and behavior should exist at the same time,otherwise sanctions will unreasonable.
Second, mistakes of allowable criminal-component lack of actuality consciousness of unlawfulness,it caused by adoption of potential consciousness of unlawfulness,specific criminal class theory and misclassification.Finally,since the crime theory and the penalty theory are not the same, should be returned to the crime theory ,which is belong crime theory and should be returned to the penalty theory,which is belong
penalty theory.Thereby responds to the aforementioned illegal act is a criminal act , and the guilty belongs to the penalty theory.
In Chapter Six, there are my fruitful results and conclusion. |
