源自日本戰後刑法學之監督過失，或有認為是新的過失理論，或者對此概念有相當高的期待。本文直接整理日本文獻，藉由監督過失所呈現出來的學理問題，諸如作為與不作為之區分、預見可能性之內容、作為義務與注意義務之認定等，進行檢視，以明瞭監督過失究為一新理論（新的過失概念），抑或僅為過失之事實態樣。釐清本質定位之後，透過分析兩則日本實務上之代表個案，指出監督過失所以產生諸多問題，其可能原因在於：多數人參與未採二元參與體系之過失犯罪、個人多數過失之競合應當如何處理、行政法義務與刑法義務之混淆等。於結論中，首先指出監督過失之定位，並非新的過失理論，仍應遵循既有之過失作為犯或過失不作為犯之思維檢驗架構。其次則是針對產生問題的背景，指出監督過失與管理過失，兩種類型各自存在較過失更高層級的問題，並提出在罪名與刑法義務在適用上可能存在有跳躍思考之疑問等。最後指出日後國內引進監督過失概念所當著重之處，以及本概念在諸多領域所具有之提醒功能。
The concept of supervisory negligence was developed from the Japanese criminal jurisprudence after the Second World War. Some commentators have considered the concept of supervisory negligence as a new theory of negligence while some others have held a very high expectation of the concept. Through the review of Japanese literature, this paper examines problems arising from the concept of supervisory negligence, such as the differentiation between action and inaction, the content of foreseeable possibility, and the identification of the duty based on action and the duty based on notice, to understand whether supervisory negligence is a new theory or simply a factual alternative to the concept of conventional negligence. After clarifying the position of supervisory negligence by its nature, this paper further analyzes two representative cases in Japan, seeking to point out possible reasons why supervisory negligence have caused so many problems. Possible reasons for causing these problems include the criminal negligence involving the participation of multiple parties rather than the participation of only two parties; the competing priority of multiple negligence arising from one individual’s conduct; as well as the confusion between the duties under the administrative law and the duties under the criminal law. In conclusion, this paper first points out that the supervisory negligence is not a new theory of negligence and it should follow existing framework of conceptual examination for the offense of negligence arising from either action or inaction. Secondly, the conclusion focuses on the background of problems regarding supervisory negligence, pointing out the existence of problems at a higher level for supervisory negligence and regulatory negligence, respectively. Finally, it points out what should be the focuses if the concept of supervisory negligence is being introduced into Taiwan in the future, as well as the function of the concept of supervisory negligence in many areas as a reminder.
