在刑法典中，常可看到兩個法律概念或是兩個犯罪構成要件，因為含有互斥的要素，而處於一種排他的關係；亦即，同一個事實只可能符合其中之一，而不可能兩者均該當。例如，總則中關於故意與過失（非出於故意）、既遂與未遂（不遂者）的定義，或是分則中第289條第1項（受懷胎婦女之囑託）與第291條第1項（未受懷胎婦女之囑託）等規定。這種法律人所慣用的分類思考模式，對於條文的解釋也產生了相當大的影響。像是有文獻主張，應透過解釋盡量讓各個罪名的構成要件互斥、不會同時被實現，如此便可提前地解決競合的問題，而不再需要透過法條競合之特別關係這個概念來處理。這樣的立法或概念形成方式，乍看之下清楚分明，但在刑法上，卻會因為罪疑唯輕原則、故意與客觀事實對應合致原則以及共犯從屬性之要求，而在事實不明、事實錯誤以及共犯過剩的情形導致處罰的漏洞。如此的漏洞之所以不可忍受，是因為我們無法論罪的原因居然是「存有更高度的不法事實」，這顯然是一個評價上的矛盾！為了避免評價矛盾的結果，法律適用者就必須透過解釋，否定其中一個互斥要素具有不法要素的性質，讓兩個罪名的互斥關係轉變成包含關係。至於法條中不具建構不法功能的要素，則應該理解成立法者為了避免重複評價所預示的競合規則（明示之補充條款）。

In the Criminal Code of Taiwan (thereinafter the Code), we often see some incompatibilities among criminal offenses. In other words, when one person commits a particular crime, it is impossible to commit another. Taking the following cases for example, the definition of intent and negligent in the general principles of the Code, the complete crime and the attempted crime, or the section one of Article 289 (at the pregnant woman's request) and the section one of Article 291 (without the request of the pregnant woman), all of these illustrate incompatible offenses in the current Code. The current Code seems to work without difficulty. However, when it comes to the mistake of fact or the ambiguity in fact, the current law results in a loophole which brings injustice: one cannot be punished because he originally has planed to commit a higher degree of offense in terms of culpable state of mind or criminal act. In order to fix this problem, amending the present Code is one solution; considering the possibility of statutory interpretation is another. The main purpose of this project is to explore the possibility of transforming the intra-incompatible relation among provisions into the normative compatible one.