The existence of the constitutive element of “being adequate to
render injury to the public or another”from article 354 in Taiwan has
not only raised questions about the characterization of the crime but
also created controversies over the contradiction and interpretation of
the elements such as “abandon,” “destroy,”and “renders useless”. To
insist on the basic principles of actual damage crime in criminal law,
there are appeals for the deletion of this element (which causes injury
to the public or another) through legislative procedures. However,
rather than intend to find a way to amend or delete the constitutive
element via legislative procedures, we should moreover follow the
criterion mentioned below: if the conflict between the constitutive
elements can be resolved through the operation of legal dogmatics in
criminal law, it can deal with the problems of legal application in
reality as well at the same time. Therefore, the method mentioned
above, not only legal professionals can scrupulously abide by their
duties but also avoid the criticism of falling into old ruts. We have an
opportunity to consider whether there is still necessary for penal
intervention in the case of simple damage to another person's property
under the existing order in civil law. We should take the constitutive
element of “being adequate to render injury to the public or another”
as an opportunity to reflect on the connotation of the legal interest of
this crime and the differences under the structure of invading
individual legal interests between dangerous crime and actual damage
crime by re-examining the overall structure in the crime of property
damage. At the end, this article suggests the conclusion can be used to
stimulate the thinking of the academic community as well as serve as
a reference for the practical community.