間接故意理論之發展－兼論不確定故意、未必故意與附條件故意

我國現行刑法第十三條第二項之規定可以溯源至民國七年刑法第二次修正案，其中第十九條開始了對於故意進行立法定義的做法，並且於理由中將第二項規定喚為間接故意。然而，國內文獻上在介紹該項規定時，卻可以見到一個特別的現象，就是在說明上同時出現間接故意(dolus indirectus)、不確定故意(dolus indeterminatus)與未必故意(dolus eventualis)這三個用語，時常有加以混用之情形。這容易引發一個質疑，如果這三個名詞是同義詞，在概念的使用上顯然沒有必要，大可加以精簡。而更啟人疑竇的是，倘若這三個概念的確是同義詞的話，為何三者其拉丁文之原文又各不相同呢？更別說偶而又再加入一個德文為表述方式的同義詞－附條件故意(bedingter Vorsatz)，這不僅造成學術與實務上的困擾，也會構成學習上的障礙。本文之目的即在於，將上述諸概念之歷史脈絡所進行的梳理，能夠還給這些故意類型一個本來的面貌，或許可以做為實務與研究之參考，至於用語之抉擇問題，則待日後凝聚共識。初步之結論如下，首先，間接故意與未必故意之間雖然確有傳承關係，但是兩者之實質意義內容仍有所不同。其次，不論是欲將確定故意與刑法第十三條第一項等同視之，抑或是欲以不確定故意對應第十三條第二項之內容，所得到的結論應該都是否定的，因為，用來對應的兩者其各自的意義與範圍彼此有所出入。而文獻上將間接故意與不確定故意等同視之的見解，可以說是沒有依據的。第三，就上述文獻上所出現的這四種故意概念，我國刑法第十三條第二項的規定和未必故意之內涵應是最為相近的。

關鍵字

間接故意；不確定故意；未必故意與附條件故意

並列摘要

While the Taiwanese Criminal Law explicitly defines the meaning of intention and especially of dolus indirectus, the difference among the concepts of dolus indirectus, dolus indeterminatus as well as dolus eventualis seems to be ignored in academic discussions, not to mention the misleading use of the German concept of bedingter Vorsatz. In view of the confusing situation, this essay attempts to clarify the difference of these concepts through exploring their historical backgrounds and contexts. I will argue that, fist of all, even though the concepts of dolus indirectus and of dolus eventualis are closely related, their substantial meanings are different; moreover, neither the conceptual identification of dolus determinatus with the intention in the sense of Article 13 Sec. 1 of the Taiwanese Criminal Law nor the interpretation of intention in the sense of Article 13 Sec. 2 of the Taiwanese Criminal Law as dolus indeterminatus are sustainable. Last but not least, from a historical and theoretical pers pective, the concept of intention defined in Article 13 Sec. 2 of the Taiwanese Criminal Law is to be understood as dolus eventualis.