法益保護和人權保障向來作為支撐刑法系統運作所不可或缺之機能，惟此二機能之拉鋸，並非只存在狹義刑法各論的類型化犯罪中，也呈現於具有交錯、重疊關係的不同法規範間，原住民族基本法與野生動物保育法間迭經立法者歷次修法所造成之規範衝突即是其例。2005 年2 月5 日施行之原住民族基本法第19 條與2004 年2 月4 日增訂之野生動物保育法第21 條之1，雖足以彰顯立法者欲透過該等規範之制定達成維護原住民族生存與文化之目的，然除了司法系統運用法釋義學的路徑，緊縮了前揭規範所欲達成之目的外，2012 年6 月6 日制定的「原住民族基於傳統文化及祭儀需要獵捕宰殺利用野生動物管理辦法」本身亦與原住民族基本法、野生動物保育法間存有扞格之處，此些規範衝突所帶來之風險，恐持續地衍生原住民族面臨刑事責任之案件。爰此，針對國家制定之諸多規範使受規範者陷於手足無措的困境，本文試圖以責任論當中的「違法性意識之可能性」作為規範衝突之調節閥，撐出足以喘息的夾縫空間，希以覓得行政系統或立法系統調整現行規範衝突之契機。

The protection of legal interest and human right are indispensable function in criminal law system. However, the seesaw of legal interest and human right doesn’t merely be found in the typal crime of criminal law. It also be found in the norms conflict of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law and Wildlife Conservation Act. Although, the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law Aritcle 19 implemented on February 5th, 2005 and Wildlife Conservation Act Aritcle updated 21-1 on February 4th,2004 are sufficient to demonstrate that the legislators want to maintain the survival and culture of the Indigenous Peoples through the enactment of such norms, the path of lawful hermeneutics in judicial system tight the purpose. ＂Based on traditional Aboriginal culture and rituals require the use of hunting wild animals managentment approach＂ enacted on June 6th, 2012 also have inconsistency betwwen the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law and Wildlife Conservation Act. The risk of norms conflict may sustain derivative criminal cases for indigenous peoples and the norms conflict cause indigenous peoples in helpless predicament. Thus, this article use the possibility of consciousness of unlawfulness an element of culpability to be the requlating valve of norms conflict which could hold more space of cushion. In order to find a chance for administrative system and legislative system to adjust existing norms conflict.