共謀共同正犯理解的新選項

The new option of understanding ＂Conspiracy Joint Principal Offenders＂

游明得(Ming-de Yu)

《真理財經法學》 11期 (2013/09) Pp. 105+107-134

摘要

傳統認為共謀共同正犯為：要件上為有事先的謀議行為，以及在著手實行階段的欠缺參與行為，效果上則認為可以引用共同正犯的法律效果「一部行為，全部責任」。共謀共同正犯在多數見解下，幾乎可以使得只有純粹在比預備更早階段的參與行為，一路追及到適用終點時既遂犯的責任，而這樣的催化效果，主要是由於我國司法院大法官自1965年即明確加以承認。因此多數學說與實務在闡釋共謀共同正犯時，常是承認多於質疑。本文嘗試將此概念以「協力型」與「支配型」重新加以解離後，認為應該只有「支配型」能否夠得上原先此一概念預設定義的討論基礎，而支配型的共謀共同正犯，其實並非共同正犯，本質上就是間接正犯概念的展現。以此加以解釋而不必拘泥於共同正犯的釋義泥沼中，當更具正當性。

關鍵字

共同正犯 ； 共謀共同正犯 ； 犯罪支配 ； 間接正犯 ； 正犯後正犯

並列摘要

The concept of ＂Joint Principal Offenders＂ in our criminal law Article 28 has stirred up a lot of disputed arguments, meanwhile the exceeding relevant perceptions are also significant in studies. The article will focus on the matter, whether should Joint Principal Offenders apply Article 28 if they only participate in the early stage of crime without committing it. In present theories and practices, the answer would be most likely positive. However, there are still several inevitable matters, such as should it qualify the objective requirements or if ＂Conspiracy Joint Principal Offenders＂ is not even an apt argument in this realm, or it could be another ＂Principal Offenders＂ form? This article firmly believe that ＂Conspiracy Joint Principal Offenders＂ is ＂Iindirect Principal Offender.