- 學位論文
不作為構成要件的因果關係理論結構與適用流程
The structure and investigating process on causation within “the crime of omission”
摘要
不純正不作為犯具有結果犯的本質，因此，犯罪的既遂以行為人的不作為與結果發生之間具有因果關係為要件。 但是，「不作為」與「作為」的有別。從本質上而言，不作為根本欠缺改變客觀世界的能力，因此，在不作為與客觀世界的變化之間，不可能與作為的情況一樣，存在「現實」、「物理」的因果關聯性。通說因而指出，不作為與結果間的因果關係具有法律擬制、假設性的性質，而與作為的情況有別。 既然二者有別，則作為因果關係、不作為因果關係的判斷，理應有不同的理論基礎。惟但是，通說對於不作為因果關係的判斷，除了提供一個「若積極作為，結果即不致發生」的檢驗公式以外，對於其他應有的實質內涵，即未有進一步的論述，導致現今對於不作為因果關係的判斷，總是模糊不清、充滿不確定性。 本文的目的在於，釐清不作為因果關係判斷的內涵。質言之，在通說所提供「若積極作為，結果即不致發生」的檢驗公式之下，嘗試明確化不作為因果關係的理論結構，並並建立應有的審查流程，以避免不作為因果關係判斷上的不確定性，造成不當的判斷結論。
並列摘要
According to criminal law experts in Taiwan, Crime of Omission, also known as “unechte Unterlassungsdelikte” in Germen, will only constitute “result crime”. Crime of omission should be compose of two criteria, criminal result and causation between criminal behavior and result . An omission, which is distinct from a commission, cannot essentially make any influence on the objective world in a direct manner. Therefore, there is no real and concrete causation between an omission and a criminal result. Criminal law experts in Taiwan indicate that the causation between an omission and a criminal result has “hypothetical” characteristic, which is not similar to commission. Thus, the theory used to establish the causation should be distinct. Nevertheless, after studying criminal jurisprudence textbooks, journals and judicial practices, we can learn that there is only a “But for Test” examining rule for us using to establish the causation without any further substantial descriptions. Therefore, it seems always cloudy and uncertainly to determine the causation between a criminal result and an omission. The main purpose of this thesis is trying to figure out how to clearly determine the causation between a criminal result and an omission. In order to avoid mistakes when we determine the causation, this thesis will research on the theoretic structure and try to establish an investigating process of the causation within the crime of omission.