由於我國刑法第十七條結果加重犯規定與日本、德國刑法規定有所差異，加上判例與絕大多數判決對於加重結果採「客觀的預見可性」立場，而與多數國內學說採「過失」立場不同，惟近幾年亦有判決背離向來判例、判決而採「過失」立場，無論是採「客觀的預見可能性」或「過失」是否真的符合第十七條規定？而數人基於共同實行基本犯罪行為之意思且有共同實行之事實，卻因其中部分人之行為或不知何人之行為發生加重結果時，是否共同者皆成立加重結果犯之共同正犯的問題，更加呈現其複雜難解之面貌。本文即以學說與最高法院判例、判決做分析檢討。

Article 17 of Criminal Code governing aggravated-result offenders is different from the similar provision of Japan or Germany Criminal Code. Precedents and judgments took the position of the “objective foreseeability” standard which is different the negligence standard which scholars argue. However, recently several judgments took the negligence standard rather than the objective foreseeability standard. Are those standards in line with Article 17 of Criminal Code? Do all co-offenders commit aggravated-result offense if the result results from some co-offenders’ acts or it cannot tell which co-offender for sure. This article analyzes this issue based on theory, relevant precedents and judgments of the Supreme Court.