English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 46965/50831 (92%)
造訪人次 : 12775490      線上人數 : 529
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    主頁登入上傳說明關於CCUR管理 到手機版


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/51183


    題名: 論加工自傷罪 -以法益持有人捨棄保護之法效為論述中心-
    The Study of the Aiding in the Self-inflicted Injury Offense in the Criminal Law- A Note on the Legal Effect of Discarding the Protection of the Self Interest –
    作者: 黃中農
    貢獻者: 法律學系
    關鍵詞: 法益處分權
    dispose of a legal right
    日期: 2022
    上傳時間: 2023-02-24 13:32:35 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 刑法任務在於法益保護,毫無疑問地為刑法學之共識。而論及法益保護,意謂著法益所依存之主體,即法益持有人,應能就其持有之法益予以處分。因而,法益處分權是否有其限界,亦即,何等情況下,經法益持有人處分其法益後,乃刑法所不過問者,又於何等情形下乃刑法不允許處分者,即啟人竇疑。
    多數學者就個人法益約略劃分為:生命、身體、自由、名譽、財產等,其中身體法益依現行刑法復有普通傷害與重傷害等二罪,就法益處分權之概念而言,學界普遍均認得被害人承諾為刑法上之超法規阻卻違法事由,法益持有人就普通傷害之身體法益予以處分,乃刑法所不罰;惟法益持有人就重傷害之身體法益予以處分,因現行法第282條仍有罰及重傷之明文,故認重傷乃法益持有人不得處分之身體法益。然而,除因實定法上有具體明文之理由外,得被害人承諾為何不能成為第282條之阻卻違法事由,是否尚有其他實質理由以支持法益持有人不能處分其重傷結果之身體法益,則少見學界與實務有所提及。
    本文擬自法益概念之本質,重新推敲法益之類型化意義,據以探討法益處分權之範圍,並對現行法第282條之規範性質重新定位,立法論上應限受法益持有人之囑託方有本罪之適用。

    It is generally accepted by the legal profession that the aim of the Criminal Code is to protect people’s legal interests. In the matter of legal protection, it is a self-evident truth that the holder of legal interests should have the right to dispose of any interests that are legally protected. On that account, it sparks widespread suspicion on the extent to which the holder of legal interests can dispose of her or his interests. That is, under what circumstances does the holder of legal interests have full right to dispose of such legal interests, and under what circumstances will the holder of legal interests be charged with a criminal offense because she or he is prohibited to dispose of a legal right.
    A majority of legal scholars have classified the legal interests of a person into “the right to life,” “the right to possess one’s own body,” “the right to freedom,” “the right to reputation,” and “the right to own one’s property.” Specifically speaking, anyone who infringes on another person’s bodily rights may be charged with an assault or aggravated assault that causes serious bodily injury which might lead to a physical disability. Seen from the nature and principles behind a person’s right to dispose of her or his legal interests, legal scholars tend to believe that if the holder of legal interests commits an assault can be acquitted by asserting an affirmative defense. On the other hand, since penalties are prescribed by criminal laws (Article 282 of the Criminal Code), the holder of legal interests has no right to dispose of her or his own body if there is any substantial bodily harm involved. There has been scant literature and discussions by legal professionals about whether there are other substantial grounds to believe that the holder of legal interests is not allowed to dispose of her or his own body if there is aggravated assault involved—even the victim has agreed to this bodily harm—aside from the punishment prescribed for the offense by criminal laws.
    This paper is intended to elaborate on the nature of legal interests and their categorization, thereby exploring the extent of disposal of legal interests and redefining the normative nature of Article 282 of the Criminal Code
    顯示於類別:[法律學系暨法律學研究所] 博碩士論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    index.html0KbHTML260檢視/開啟


    在CCUR中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋