單一正犯概念之理論基礎與立法芻議

本研究之目的，在於嘗試挑戰將犯罪行為人區分為正共犯的固有見解。在法律史上，從羅馬法時期即對於犯罪行為人進行區分，其後，區分正共犯的二元犯罪參與體系成為立法上的主流。在刑法理論上，犯罪支配理論也在經歷過相當的理論變遷之後，成為解釋正共犯區分的理論依據。然而，透過犯罪支配理論對於正共犯的詮釋仍有理論上的矛盾之處。而我國在繼受日本、德國法與理論後，亦有實務與學說對於正共犯評價的問題。諸如正共犯各類型的區分難題、正犯在實務上的擴張解釋等問題，仍尚待解決。相對於此，本文認為應由單一正犯概念作為評價犯罪行為人的基準，長久以來單一正犯概念因以因果關係作為判斷基準，而普遍受到批評。實際上，單一正犯概念必未如學說所批評，違反刑法理論上的重要原則。且回歸犯罪行為人之行為與法益侵害之間的關聯，直接將造成法益侵害之人論以正犯，可有效處理正共犯區分之難題。同時對於犯罪支配理論之例外類型，例如己手犯、義務犯、純正特別犯，均可做出合理之解釋，並避免行為人因不具特定身分或行為條件，反而造成不當處罰漏洞之情形。單一正犯概念，復區分為形式單一正犯概念與功能單一正犯概念，此區分亦同時體現在立法上。本文認為，若欲貫徹單一正犯概念以因果關係為軸之基本立場，應在立法上採取形式單一正犯體系。透過對於正犯之正面規定、以及相關刑法理論的解釋，可充分評價犯罪行為人之刑事責任。最後，在現行法的框架之下，則可嘗試採取功能單一正犯體系之解釋方向，改善二元犯罪參與體系之現有問題。

關鍵字

二元犯罪參與體系；犯罪支配理論；單一正犯概念；因果關係；形式單一正犯體系

並列摘要

The purpose of this study was to identify the inherent opinion: to distinguish between principal offender and accomplice. The “dualistisches Beteiligungssystem” started with Roman law, and became the mainstream opinion of criminal code. And after the evolution of the criminal law theory, the “Tatherrschaftstheorie” became the basis to distinguish between principal offender and accomplice. However, the interpretation by the “Tatherrschaftstheorie” has theoretically contradictories. In Taiwan, due to influence of Japan and Germany criminal law, it has problems of the distinction between principal offender and accomplice, including the contradictories of different types and the constructional expansion of principal offender. This study argues that the “Einheitstäterbegriff” is the more reasonable evaluation standard of the principal offender, although it has been criticized for a long time. In fact, the “Einheitstäterbegriff” do not contradict the theoretically cardinal principles as many arguments claimed. Observing the causation between the behavior of the offender and the infringement of the legal goods can solve the problem about the distinction between principal offender and accomplice, simultaneously, can explain the exception of the “Tatherrschaftstheorie”, including “eigenhändige Delikte”, “Pflichtdelikte”, and “echtes Sonderdelikte”. The “Einheitstäterbegriff” has two types in legislative model: the “formale Einheitstätersystem” and the “funktionelle Einheitstätersystem”. It is more reasonable to adopt the “formale Einheitstätersystem”, because the “Einheitstäterbegriff” based on the causation between the behavior of the offender and the infringement of the legal goods. The criminal responsibility of the principal offender can be evaluated by the definition in criminal code and related criminal theory. And lastly, adopting the constructional strategy of the “funktionelle Einheitstätersystem” can solve the problem of the “dualistisches Beteiligungssystem” appropriately under the existing criminal code.