重新檢驗不真正不作為犯的可罰性基礎―以刑法中的侵害原理為核心標準―

Unechte Unterlassungsdelikte Reviewed:On the Basis of Harm Principle in Criminal Law

劉家丞(Chia-Chen Liu)

指導教授 ： 李茂生

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.01512

摘要

不真正不作為犯可謂當代刑法理論歷經二百餘年的發展以來，解釋途徑相當分岐且見解更迭最為快速的一個領域。這不僅是源自於不真正不作為犯討論的射程範圍橫跨行為論、因果關係、歸責理論、以及自身所特有的保證人地位要素等眾多刑法中的議題；更是因為不真正不作為犯的內涵直接涉及，十八世紀以來一直隱藏在刑法圖像深處的矛盾。

而本文的首要目標，便是透過分析歷年來不真正不作為犯在立法論及解釋學的變遷，試圖說明上述刑法圖像的矛盾，乃存在於「保護人民的自由不受到國家侵害」以及「保護人民權利不受到其他人民侵害」的二律悖反中。也因此，不真正不作為犯的立法與解釋，總是陷入「違反罪刑法定主義」或是「要求人民主動保護他人法益」的艱難選擇。

在另一方面，本文亦將藉由法國社會學家M. Foucault於一九七○年代後期，所進行一系列「生命政治」的研究，嘗試說明上述刑法圖像的矛盾是在怎麼樣的治理術變遷下所型塑；並進一步指摘，「必須保衛社會」的想法是如何成為刑法理論的主流，且創造出至今仍盛行的「規範論」。而不真正不作為犯的論述，也逐漸受到這一股浪潮，走向以義務違反犯為主的解釋途徑。

最終，基於反抗以新自由主義為代表的「生命政治」治理術典範，本文擬參考梅崎進哉等學者近年來的貢獻，重拾起曾經在十七世紀與「生命政治」相抗衡，卻逐漸沒落而成為伏流的「法律理論」，進行局部的奮鬥。在刑法的領域中，即是以源自於英國大憲章及日耳曼部落契約的「侵害原理」作為主要的支柱，與現今主流的行為規範論述相抗衡。此外，針對這篇論文主軸的不真正不作為犯，本文亦將嘗試重構以「侵害原理」為核心的解釋途徑，希望能夠帶來些微反抗的曙光。

關鍵字

不真正不作為犯 ； 保證人地位 ； 義務違反犯 ； 規範論 ； 罪刑法定主義 ； 侵害原理 ； 生命政治 ； 必須保衛社會

並列摘要

Abstract

Over the past two centuries, the concept of unechte Unterlassungsdelikte has been one of the aspects of modern criminal law theory featuring some of the most divergent approaches to interpretation, as well as the most rapidly changing opinions. This is not only because the scope of unechte Unterlassungsdelikte encompasses numerous issues in criminal law, including theory of behavior, causation, attribution theory, and Garantenstellung, but also because the substance of unechte Unterlassungsdelikte involves directly a paradox inherent in the conception of criminal law since the 18th century.

The primary goal of this paper is to analyze the changes in the theory of legislation and hermeneutics regarding unechte Unterlassungsdelikte over the years to illustrate that the above paradox stems from the antinomy between protecting personal liberties from infringement by the state and protecting them from infringement by other private citizens. As a result, legislation and legal interpretations related to unechte Unterlassungsdelikte inevitably involves a difficult choice between the principle of nulla poena sine lege and the principle of Rechtsgut protecting.

On the other hand, the researcher follows the Biopolitics research from M. Foucault proposed in the late 1970s and explains the paradox in the images of criminal law was made from what kind of Governmentality change. Furthermore, the researcher presents how come “social must be defended” has became a mainstream thought in the field of criminal law and even created normative theory which is still prevalent nowadays. And the discussion of unechte Unterlassungsdelikte has been affected and gradually turned into Pflichtdelikte as a mainstream way of explanation.

At last, based on the resistance to the paradigm, Biopolitics Governmentality, which is on behalf by neoliberalism, this thesis refers to the contributions from Umeki Shinnya and other researchers in recent years and takes back “legality theory” which once contended against Biopolitics Governmentality but ended up an underground stream. Actually, the field of criminal laws is founded by harm principle which can be sourced from Magna Carta and the social contracts of Germanic tribes. And harm principle can contend against the discussion on the theory of behavior norm today. Besides, to the core of this thesis, unechte Unterlassungsdelikte, the researcher tries to use harm principle as a core concept to reconstruct the way of explanation and hopes it can bring the dawn of rebellion.

並列關鍵字

unechte Unterlassungsdelikte ； Garantenstellung ； Pflichtdelikte ； normative theory ； Nulla poena sine lege ； harm principle ； Biopolitics ； social defense

參考文獻

２、 張桐嘉（2008）。《論霍布斯的主權概念》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），台北。

２１、 許恒達（2010）。〈行為非價與結果非價：論刑事不法概念的實質內涵〉，《政大法學評論》，114期，頁215-300。

１、 王安異（2009）。〈穿越價值哲學：韋爾策爾（Welzel）的人本刑法思想研究〉，《政大法學評論》，108期，頁1-62。

１０、 周漾沂（2014）。〈從客觀轉向主觀：對於刑法上結果歸責理論的反省與重構〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43卷4期，頁1469-1532。

８、 周漾沂（2014）。〈重新建構刑法上保證人地位的法理基礎〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43卷1期，頁209-269。