想像競合犯與牽連犯之研究

The Study of Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence

洪健銘(Jian-Ming Hong)

指導教授 ： 廖正豪

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2009年)

摘要

原刑法第55條將想像競合犯與牽連犯同置於一個條文規定之下，一個條文容納刑法競合理論兩大概念之情形，因而想像競合犯與牽連犯之關係頗耐人尋味。其實，想像競合犯與牽連犯兩者，在立法發展史上可說是糾纏不清的，在實務見解亦顯得曖昧不明，但在學理觀點中卻是涇渭分明、不容混淆。

2006年7月1日所施行之新修正刑法，將原刑法第55條後段牽連犯之立法規定加以刪除。立法者此舉非但使刑法上競合理論體系發生變動，更由於未對原應論以牽連犯之案件，於修法後應如分別論以想像競合犯或數罪併罰之情形予以具體明示，而形成實務論罪科刑上之難題。此點，立法者似乎有意委由學理與實務補充解釋，發展出一套可供解決的方案。然而，要尋得解決的方案，若非把想像競合犯與牽連犯之概念加以釐清不可。職是之故，本論文試圖從原刑法第55條此一條文細說重頭，將想像競合犯與牽連犯之概念逐一抽絲剝繭，以求得二者之間共通的概念要素。

在架構的安排上，本論文乃以原刑法第55條為出發點，劃分想像競合犯與牽連犯兩大架構，並在此架構下，再個別探討其定位、學理間之理解、條文之規定、實務間之理解；在資料蒐集上，是以我國學理書籍和文獻與我國實務判例和判決為主，將此些資料加以歸納整理並進而分析以求得想像競合犯與牽連犯二者之關係。

以「想像競合犯與牽連犯之研究」為題，本論文之內容共分為六章：第一章為「前言」，說明問題來源並提出系爭問題；第二章論以「想像競合犯」，敘明想像競合犯的定位問題、提出學理間的觀點並加以評析、細述條文規定的立法發展史與新舊條文的差異、釐清實務判例見解並抽取其要素；第三章論以「牽連犯」，提出學理間的觀點並加以評析、觀察刪除牽連犯之學理爭議與立法動態、釐清實務判例見解並抽取其要素；第四章探討「想像競合犯與牽連犯之連繫」，在刪除牽連犯之後，原屬牽連犯的案件，將可被劃歸至想像競合犯、數罪併罰與不罰之後行為此三類範疇。而概念上屬於數行為的牽連犯，若要歸入想像競合犯之範疇，則不得不變動想像競合犯「一行為」的概念，而單一的意思決定之一行為即為想像競合犯與牽連犯二者間之連繫點。是以，該章主要在於論述一行為之判斷與一行為概念之操作運用；第五章觀察實務判決的動向，原屬於牽連犯的案件，在刪除牽連犯之立法規定後，實務判決見解將如何具體適用法律論罪科刑；第六章總結「結論」，提出想像競合犯與牽連犯之共通要素以為研究結果並解決牽連犯轉想像競合犯之難題。

關鍵字

想像競合犯 ； 牽連犯 ； 刑法上之競合理論 ； 一行為 ； 行為單數 ； 行為複數 ； 單一的意思決定 ； 社會經驗認知上的一行為

並列摘要

The relationship between Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence, which had been enacted in Article 55 of the R.O.C. Criminal Code (1935), was an intriguing question due to the situation that two theories of Criminal Concurrence were involved in one article in the same place. It could be found that, as a matter of fact, both Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence were entangling in the legislative history, ambiguous in the judicial precedents, but clearly separated in the academic circles.

The provision concerning Implicated Offence enacted in the after paragraph of Article 55 was deleted in the R.O.C. Criminal Code (2006). However, such a legislative decision brought about two effects: on the one hand, the R.O.C. Criminal Code (2006) reorganized theories of Criminal Concurrence; on the other hand, reasons for deleting the provision concerning Implicated Offence did not supply a concrete solution to cases originally applying to that provision, which led to a difficult problem about the court’s meting out punishment. At this point, lawmakers would like to authorize scholars and judges to supply the solution by means of supplementary explanation. Besides, it was necessary to clearly separate the concept of Ideal Concurrence from the one of Implicated Offence. Therefore, this thesis tried to analyze Article 55 (1935) concerning Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence in detail in order to find out the common element.

This thesis divided Article 55 (1935) into two systems, Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence, in the framework. We would individually discuss the position each should be fixed, the academic circles’ understanding, the provision, and the analysis of the judicial precedents. Furthermore, this thesis collated and analyzed not only internal books and journals concerning the related theme for discussion but also the related judicial precedents and decisions in the way of data collection.

Titled “The Study of Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence”, the thesis was divided into six chapters. The first chapter was an introduction which stated the arising of the every dispute and listed the every dispute. Then, “Ideal Concurrence” would be discussed in the second chapter, its systemic position, the analysis of the academic circles’ understanding, the legislative history and the difference between the R.O.C. Criminal Code (1935) and the one (2006), and the element-categorization of the judicial precedents was included. In the same way, “Implicated Offence”, including the analysis of the academic circles’ understanding, the academic argument about deleting the provision concerning Implicated Offence, the legislative process and decision, and the element-categorization of the judicial precedents, would be discussed in the third chapter. Afterwards, we would find out that there was a link between Ideal Concurrence and Implicated in the forth chapter. The cases originally applying to the provision concerning Implicated Offence should be re-categorized into Ideal Concurrence, Combined Punishment, or After Act with Impunity. The Implicated Offence was one actor who violated several criminal provisions by plural behavior. On the contrary, the Ideal Concurrence was one actor who violated several criminal provisions by one single act. Therefore, the concept of one single act concerning Ideal Concurrence would be transformed if cases originally applying to the provision concerning Implicated Offence were re-categorized in ones applying to the provision concerning Ideal Concurrence. As the result, there was a link between Ideal Concurrence and Implicated Offence, and the link was singular behavior by one single criminal determination. This chapter was aimed at the judgment of singular behavior and the application of singular behavior. The fifth chapter observed recent judicial decisions. Finally, the sixth chapter was the conclusion in which this thesis announced the research findings and solved the dispute about the re-categorization of Implicated Offence.

並列關鍵字

Ideal Concurrence ； Implicated Offence ； Theory of Criminal Concurrence ； One single act ； Sigular behavior ； Plural behavior ； One single criminal determination ； Experiential singular behavior(Empirische Handlungseinheit)

參考文獻

蘇俊雄，刑法總論II，自版，1998年12月修正版。

吳景欽，連續犯牽連犯刪除後於刑事程序上之影響，法令月刊，第56卷第6期，2005年6月。

陳志輝，肇事逃逸罪與遺棄罪之競合關係─簡評最高法院九三年度台上字第六五一三號判決－，台灣本土法學，第70期，2005年5月。

蔡墩銘，不作為犯之競合－評最高法院九三年度台上字第六五一三號判決－，台灣本土法學，第72期，2005年7月。

鄭逸哲、劉柏江，「構成要件競合」與「構成要件該當性的判斷流程」，法令月刊，第59卷第7期，2008年7月。