 |
English
|
正體中文
|
简体中文
|
Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 109951/140892 (78%)
Visitors : 46213961
Online Users : 935
|
|
|
Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/114423
|
| Title: | 禁止錯誤之法律效果──為故意理論辯護
The Legal Effect of Prohibition Mistake: Vindication of Intention Theory |
| Authors: | 薛智仁
Hsueh, Chih-Jen |
| Keywords: | 禁止錯誤;故意理論;罪責理論;罪責原則;不法意識;構成要件錯誤
Prohibition Mistake;Intention Theory;Guilt Theory;Guilt Principle;Illegality Cognition;Mistakes of Essential Factors |
| Date: | 2015-09 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-11-07 10:45:06 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 在二○○五年的刑法總則修正中，立法者依據罪責理論的原理，將不可避免禁止錯誤的法律效果修改為阻卻罪責。不過，本文將指出，罪責理論並非貫徹罪責原則的最佳方案，其將不法意識視為故意以外的獨立罪責要素，使禁止錯誤的行為人受到比構成要件錯誤的行為人更不利的待遇，是迄今仍找不出合理根據的作法。相對之下，故意理論將不法意識視為故意的組成部分，平等對待構成要件錯誤與禁止錯誤的行為人，才是合理的出發點，至於罪責理論批評其造成難以忍受的可罰性漏洞，以及不當地優惠習慣犯與確信犯，都是言過其實的指摘。依此立場，故意固然仍是主觀不法要素，其內涵卻產生大幅的變化，難以和現行法相符合，有待立法者修法採納。
In the 2005 amendment of the General Provisions of the Criminal Code, legislators modified the legal effect of the inevitable prohibition mistake to negate guilt. This amendment is considered to be the fulfillment of the guilt principle, and is to be universally endorsed. However, this study points out that the theory is not the best solution to implement the guilt principle. It regards ＂illegality cognition＂ as an element independent of subjective intent, which exposes the perpetrators of prohibition mistake to more unfavorable treatment compared to those perpetrating mistakes of essential factors. This practice has yet to form a reasonable basis. In contrast, the intention theory, which was not adopted by legislators, regards ＂illegality cognition＂ as an element of subjective intent, and gives the above-mentioned perpetrators equal treatment. That is the proper starting point. As supporters of the theory of guilt criticize it, it has caused excruciating vulnerability of punishment, and improperly given concessions to both habitual criminals and crimes of conscience. In fact, the accusations are exaggerated. Therefore, this study supports intention theory. Whether it is based on mistakes of fact or law, prohibition mistake both negates the effectiveness of intention, and the act is considered to have been committed negligently. By this position, although intention is still an element of subjective iniquity, the connotation has changed so substantially that it is hard to be consistent with the current law. It still awaits amendment by legislators. |
| Relation: | 政大法學評論, 142, 149-226 |
| Data Type: | article |
| DOI 連結: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/102398202015090142003 |
| DOI: | 10.3966/102398202015090142003 |
| Appears in Collections: | [政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 142-3.pdf | | 2073Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 250 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.
2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
