參與危險活動成員間之刑事責任：我國刑事判決實證研究

Abstract

現今社會民眾結伴共同參與登山、潛水發生意外是無可避免地情形。然而，一旦在危險活動進行的過程中，發生人員傷亡意外，參與活動的成員可能遭追究相關刑事責任。本論文探討我國刑事法院如何認定參與危險活動成員間之刑事責任、法院對於責任成立所採取的判斷標準，進一步分析法院所依循的判斷標準以及論理判斷是否妥適。為此，本論文以實證研究之方式探討相關裁判，觀察何種團體之成員間被法院認定負有作為義務，分析法院以何種理論方式判斷參與危險活動團體成員責任、行為人成立或不成立作為義務之主要理由為何、何人負有承擔危險的責任照顧義務，以及相互承擔危險之責任及照顧義務是否有解除或排除之可能。經本論文研究發現，依照實務通說標準，法院判定參與危險活動成員的刑事責任時，傾向以團體活動危險之高低，判斷成員是否有承擔危險之義務。對此，本論文認為，基於自由主義及法規範明確性之價值，應有必要限縮行為人責任之成立。因此，唯有透過成員間之合意，始能作為成員有彼此相互信賴互相照顧義務之正當化的理由，並能減輕對於規範明確性不足之質疑，化解社會連帶性價值與自由主義之間的衝突。

In this society where people seek risks for fun and thrills, it is inevitable for people participating in dangerous group activities such as mountain climbing or diving to experience accidents. When these accidents involve injury or death, certain members of the group may be subject to prosecution of criminal responsibility. How do criminal courts in Taiwan determine criminal responsibility of people involved in dangerous activities? What standards do the courts follow to determine criminal responsibility? And are the standards the courts adopt and the decisions they make accordingly appropriate? Through empirical research of previous court decisions for relevant cases, this thesis reveals the foundational precedent for the types of groups partaking in dangerous activities which require certain members to be legally obligated to another person’s safety, the theories courts use to determine criminal responsibility among people participating in dangerous activities, the main reasons for which people assume the duty to take care of each other, whom within the group has a legal obligation to another person’s safety, and whether or not it is possible to exclude or release the aforesaid duty. In this thesis, findings reveal that the majority of courts tend to determine whether or not people are criminally liable by considering the level of danger of that activity. Per liberalism, the principle of clarity, and definiteness of law, it is necessary to limit the responsibility of the people participating dangerous activities. Only with explicit consent of participants is it justified to impose the duty upon them to take responsibility for another’s safety. This not only reduces lack of clarity and definiteness of law but also resolves conflicts between social solidarity and liberalism.