- 學位論文
我國現行身心障礙鑑定於刑法重傷害認定之運用-以單眼失明、手部功能受損及精神傷害為例
The disability evaluation system（ICF）and the serious injury in criminal law - a case study on monocular blindness, impaired hand function and mental injury
摘要
我國現行的新制身心障礙鑑定，乃於民國96年修訂身心障礙者權益保障法時，依法採用新式的國際分類系統(「國際健康功能與身心障礙分類系統（International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, 之後簡稱ICF）」)而制定；與舊制以「醫療診斷」為考量不同，新制身心障礙鑑定乃針對個案所具有的功能。在此模式下，更能全面呈現傷害對個案於原始生活中所造成的影響。 我國對於重傷害之定義，規定於刑法第十條第四項；然檢視實務判決中此規定之解釋或運用，可發現並無明確的依據；此外，對傷害程度的認定，刑事法學及法院實務皆表示需以當時醫學科技之專業認定，但若採用ICF觀點，去認定傷害之程度，則與法規所涵攝之範圍有所出入。 本研究針對司法實務中較具有爭議的案件類型：單眼失明(ICF觀點未達身心障礙程度，但於法規涵攝範圍)、手部功能損傷(ICF觀點已達身心障礙程度，但可能未符合法規涵攝範圍)及精神傷害(ICF觀點已達身心障礙程度，但司法實務鮮少討論)，彙整出傷害程度認定之爭點，嘗試採行ICF觀點於以解釋；並檢視新制身心障礙鑑定無法適用於司法判決之可能原因，並提出如何運用新制身心障礙鑑定落實ICF觀點。
並列摘要
When Physically and Mentally Disabled Citizens Protection Act was revised in 2007, the disability evaluation system adopt a new international classification system (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health 【ICF】) according to law. Unlike the old system which considered "medical diagnosis", the new system is focus on the functions of individual cases. In this mode, it can more fully present the restrictions that the injury has caused to the case in the original life. The definition of serious injury is stipulated in Article 10 Item 4 of the Criminal Law. However, when examining the interpretation or application of this provision in the practical judgment, it can be found that there is no clear basis. For the determination of the degree of injury, both criminal jurisprudence and court practice indicated that the professional identification of medical technology at that time was required. However, using the ICF point of view to determine the degree of injury, it was different from the subsumption scope of the law. This study focuses on the more controversial case types in judicial practice：Blindness in one eye (In ICF viewpoint,this kind of injory does not reach the level of disability, but it is covered by the law.), impairment of hand function (In ICF viewpoint,this kind of injory has reached the level of the disability, but it may not meet the subsumption scope of the law.) and mental injury (In ICF viewpoint, this kind of injory has reached the level of the disability, but it is rarely discussed in judicial practice.), summarize the disputes about the determination of the degree of injury, and try to adopt the ICF point of view to explain. It also examines the possible reasons why the new disability evaluation system cannot be applied to judicial decisions, and proposes how to use the new disability evaluation system to implement the ICF perspective.