論不法故意—可罰違法性理論之重新導向

CCUR > College of Law > Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law > thesis > Item 987654321/53910

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/53910

Title:	論不法故意—可罰違法性理論之重新導向 Positioning Absichtlich and Unrechtsbewusstsein -- Substantial Illegality of Re-orientation
Authors:	楊子儀 YANG, TZU-YI
Contributors:	法律學系
Keywords:	社會規範生活利益法益應刑性罪之本體客觀歸屬理論主觀不法高度意圖目的犯不法故意過失著手微罪可罰違法性理論主客觀對應理論客觀可罰性條件刑法上錯誤未遂未遂犯 Social Norms Livelihood Interests Legal Interests Should be A Criminalization Originals of Crime Objektive Zurechnung Degree of Subjective Unlawfulness Intent Purpose Crime Absichtlich and Unrechtsbewusstsein Negligence Commencement Minor Offense Substantial Illegality Kongruenzdogma Objektive Strafbarkeitsbedingungen The Concept of Error in Criminal law Attempt Attempted Offense
Date:	2024
Issue Date:	2025-02-24 15:23:32 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	始於「成罪否」之困惑，本文初探微罪並追溯罪之源起與本體，萃取人民應刑共感，執為立法準據，以證「罪責」與「社會諸多價值」並非罪之要素。立法者服膺於刑法手段特性，並在客觀歸屬理論、客觀可罰性條件及刑法（下同）第12條第1項主觀不法高度之要求下，制定法定要件。次剖析我國故意、過失之法定要件，排除無法判斷之要件及行為人事後回溯之主觀後，以「對構成犯罪事實之認知」收編直接故意、間接故意、有認識過失；並基於應刑性不存、要件空洞等理由，刪廢無認識過失。由此確立罪之主觀不法僅不法故意，並區辨刑法領域中之諸多「故意」。又，不法故意既由行為人主觀所填充，當無從知悉法定要件，故不生主客觀對應，而「構成犯罪之事實」係指「應刑所框定之事實」，無法逸脫規範論事實，且參與社會是規範施用前提，第16條僅用以排除極端與社會脫節之個案。緣此，判斷犯罪僅存不法故意與著手，無另尋錯誤論之必要。再，有鑑於不法故意篩檢「非罪」之效率卓越，故犯罪檢驗應自不法故意為判斷起點，再以客觀歸屬理論與著手合一作為罪否之判準，至於客觀不法是否俱足之既、未遂，乃至於立法者求處斷上比例所冠「既、未遂犯」之名，均屬判斷後之狀態描述而無涉罪否驗證。末，論罪時，依序確認不法故意與著手，並謹守規範效力範圍，毋庸假借可罰違法性、不法從屬等理論架空犯罪檢驗，終而解答「罪否」之惑 This article starts with the confusion of "whether a crime is committed," exploring Minor Offenses and the Originals of Crime, emphasizing shared criminal responsibility. It argues that "criminal liability" and "various Social Norms" are not crime elements. Legislators establish statutory elements under Objektive Zurechnung, Objektive Strafbarkeitsbedingungen, and the Degree of Subjective Unlawfulness in Article 12, Section 1. It analyzes the statutory elements of Intent and Negligence, excluding unjudgable elements, and defines Intent and Negligence based on awareness of criminal facts. It advocates abolishing negligence without knowledge and asserts that subjective illegality is only Absichtlich and Unrechtsbewusstsein. Since Absichtlich and Unrechtsbewusstsein is subjective, there is no correspondence between subjective and objective elements. The "facts constituting a crime" refer to those defined by Legal Interests. Crime determination should focus on Absichtlich and Unrechtsbewusstsein and Commencement, not on The Concept of Error in Criminal law. Finally, crime examination should begin with Absichtlich and Unrechtsbewusstsein and Commencement, using Objektive Zurechnung to determine if a crime occurred, with Attempt or Attempted Offense being post-judgment descriptive terms.
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] thesis

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	3	View/Open

View Licence

Loading...