遺棄罪之研究－待釐清保護法益的具體危險犯

A Study of the Crime of Abandonment: The Unclarified Legally Protected Interests for the Punishment of Concrete Crime of Danger

許澤天(Tze-Tien Hsu)

《東吳法律學報》 22卷2期 (2010/10) Pp. 1-45

https://doi.org/10.6416/SLR.201010.0001

摘要

遺棄罪是危險犯的規定，這點在學說上並無疑問。學說上爭議甚久的，乃是遺棄罪究係具體危險犯，還是抽象危險犯。不過，在處理此項爭議前，更有必要先解決遺棄罪所保護法益究係為何的問題。此處，除了學說上所討論的，是否要把法益從生命擴張到身體利益外，實務上逐漸地把扶養請求權納入保護範圍，2010年初所新增訂的刑法第二九四條之一，似乎即是在肯定此前提下所設的不罰規定。然而，從現行法解釋觀點與比較法上考察，扶養請求權不是遺棄罪要保護的法益，是否保護，仍待立法明確明文。
現行法的遺棄罪結構，區別刑法第二九三條「一般遺棄罪」與刑法第二九四條「有義務者之遺棄罪」，應無必要，可在立法上合併成一條規定，而只剩下前者。因為，透過刑法第十五條不純正不作為犯規定，即可發揮取代後者之功能；誠然，前提必須是將一般遺棄罪的法定刑修改，方能維持價值平衡。又，無自救力之人係屬遺棄罪所要特別強調的保護客體，解釋上需以一定持續性為前提，否則將使遺棄罪轉變成所謂的「一般生命危險罪」。同時，危險結果須與行為之危險性相區隔，方才符合具體危險犯的性質；而危險故意則係介於實害故意與有認識過失的主觀不法。

關鍵字

遺棄 ； 法益 ； 扶養請求權 ； 危險結果 ； 危險故意

並列摘要

There is no doubt that crime of abandonment (Aussetzung) is a crime of danger (Gefährdungsdelikt) under criminal theories. However, what categories, either the crime of concrete danger (konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt) or the crime of abstract danger (abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt), the crime of abandonment falls into is a longstanding dispute among criminal scholars. Nevertheless, prior to touching upon this dispute, there is a prerequisite question to be explored, which is what legal interests the crime of abandonment is enacted to protect. Besides the heated scholarly debate of whether to expand the coverage of protected legal interests from people's lives to people's body, the courts have recognized that the claim for support is within the domain of protected legal interests. The exemption under Article 294-1 of the Criminal Code, as amended in early 2010, may serve as an excellent example to amplify the expansion of the coverage of legally protected interests. Whereas, there is no statutory langua ge ascertaining the expansion and both the statutory interpretation and the comparative studies indicate otherwise. It remains an issue to be resolved by the legislative branch.
Currently, there are two kinds of crimes of abandonment in Criminal Code, which are the General Crime of Abandonment under Article 293 and the Crime of Abandonment Committed by One Who Is under an Obligation under Article 294. The Criminal Code distinguishes the former with the latter and such a distinction is unnecessary. The latter shall be incorporated into the former. Through the application of Article 15 of the Criminal Code, the concept of crimes committed under quasi-omission is broad enough to cover the Crime of Abandonment Committed by One Who Is under an Obligation under the General Crime of Abandonment. Of course, before the incorporation, the criminal penalty under Article 293 of the Criminal Code shall be amended in order to encompass the application of Article 293 to the crime originally punished under Article 294 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, to protect those who can not support themselves is the very reason why the crime of abandonment is enacted, and hence, the interpretation of Art icle 293 shall be based upon this legislative intent. Otherwise the incorporation will turn the crime of abandonment into a so-called Crime of Endanger Others' Lives. Further, the concepts of the accomplished danger and the degree of danger of a criminal act shall be distinguished in order to be in accordance with the nature of the concrete crime of danger. Furthermore, it shall be clarifies that the concept of intended danger shall fall between the concept of a criminal's intention to accomplish the criminal result and a criminal's subjective misunderstanding of criminal action.

並列關鍵字

abandon ； legal interest ； claim for support ； accomplished danger ； intended danger

參考文獻

王皇玉(2008)。論危險犯。月旦法學雜誌。159，235-244。

王榮聖(2007)。論遺棄罪之危險屬性。興大法學。2，239-284。

甘添貴(2001)。體系刑法各論。台北:自版。

甘添貴(2009)。刑法各論。台北:三民。

林山田(2008)。刑法通論。台北:自版。