構成要件錯誤理論再探索－兼論美國法中移轉故意原則

Abstract

在構成要件的理論裡，有關於客體錯誤的部分，在我國學說及實務上似乎已無爭議，皆認為應以構成要件為判斷標準，如果是同一構成要件內的錯誤，則認為對於實害客體不能阻卻故意，反之如果是不同構成要件的錯誤，則不認為對實害客體有故意。以殺人罪為例，如果行為人甲誤A為B而殺之，則甲仍成立殺人既遂罪。反之，如果甲誤山豬為人而殺之，則不認為甲對山豬存在毀損故意，而只能認為甲成立殺人未遂及過失毀損罪。本文對以上的學說提出不同意見，本文認為並非能僅以「是否等價」為唯一的判斷標準，蓋構成要件類型不一，有些客體錯誤發生時，我們仍可清楚的認知道該客體屬於同一構成要件（如誤認A為B時，我們仍知我們殺害者為「人」），而另外一些客體錯誤發生時，我們並無法必然得知其屬同一構成要件（如誤A為爺爺B，而恰巧A是爸爸的情形。我們不必然會知道我們殺的是「直系血親尊親屬」）。本文嘗試從「故意的對象」展開討論，對錯誤的理論基礎作進一步的探索，並將範圍延伸至構成要件的三種類型－客體錯誤、打擊錯誤及因果歷程錯誤。 在比較法的介紹上，除了德日關於構成要件錯誤的理論外，本文嘗試介紹美國法上一個處理打擊錯誤的概念－移轉故意原則（Transferred Intent），並從美國法界實務及學者對該原則的討論中，吸取對我國構成要件錯誤有比較利益的部分，例如「危險」在錯誤所扮演的角色及意圖範圍的大小。最末，本文嘗試在各國學說的理論基礎上，提出自己意見並對本文在文首的七問題試做擬答。

When it comes to the “error of the object”, in theories and judicial practice, it no longer seems to be controversial that the criteria of intention should be the element (Tatbestand).If the error is within the same element, the intention to the harmed one cannot be excluded; otherwise, if the error is not within the same element, the intention to the harmed one is excluded. Take murder as an example, if a wrongdoer mistakes one person (A) for another (B) then kills A, the wrongdoer still commits murder. Conversely, if a wrongdoer mistates a wild boar for a person then kills the wild boar, the wrongdoer’s intention to damage (to kill wild boar) is excluded and the wrongdoer only establishes a crime of attempted murder and negligent damage. This paper put forward different views on the above theory. “Equivalence or not” should not be the only criterion. Due to various types of the elements, we still realized the wrongful object belongs to the same element in some cases of error of the object. For instance, we still know that we killed a “person” even if we mistake one (A) for another (B). In other cases of error of the object, we can not definitely realize the wrongful object belongs to the same element. For example, if we mistake one (A) for grandfather (B) then kill A, we could not definitely realize we kill “elder lineal relative by blood” in coincidence of A being our fathers. This paper tries to discuss the “object of intention” at the first beginning, to further explore the basis of the 'error theory”, and to extend three types of elements - which are (1) the error of the object, (2) the error of act, and (3) the error of causal process. In addition to the German and Japanese theories of error of elements, this paper tries to introduce the “transferred intent principle of the American criminal law” which deals with the error of act. I adapted the part with comparative advantages to of our “error of elements” from the discussion between the practice and scholars in the United States, e.g. role of “danger” in error, and range of “intent.” At last, this paper tries to propose my own views and to answer seven questions mentioned in the beginning of this paper on the basis of aforementioned theories.