:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:我國普通毀損罪之反思與重構--以「足生損害」要素為契機
書刊名:中原財經法學
作者:黃翊洋
作者(外文):Huang, Yi-yang
出版日期:2023
卷期:51
頁次:頁223-304
主題關鍵詞:毀棄損壞致令不堪用足以生損害適性犯危險根源危險犯實害犯財產支配自由意圖AbandonDestroyRenders uselessBeing adequate to render injury to the public or anotherRoot causes of dangerDangerous crimeActual damage offenseProperty dominance relationshipIntention
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:3
我國普通毀損罪因為存有「足以生損害於公眾或他人」此一
構成要件要素,不僅令人對於本罪產生罪質定性之疑問,也叢生
與各要素如「毀棄」、「損壞」、「致令不堪用」之間的扞格及
解釋爭議。為恪守本罪於刑法上之實害犯定性及基本原理,遂有
要求於立法論刪除該要件之呼聲。但是,若能透過刑法釋義學之
操作即能解決要件間之衝突與應付現實之適用難題,而非輕易
訴諸立法論以謀出路,不僅能堅守司法者之分際,尚可避免淪於
窠臼之譏。本文即藉此機會思考已有民事處理機制下,單純毀損
他人之物的場合是否尚存刑罰介入之必要性,利用探究「足生損
害要素」為契機,探究本罪保護法益之內涵,並藉由危險犯與實
害犯間個人法益侵害構造差異之觀察與比較,重新檢視普通毀
損罪之整體結構,據此提出之本文結論,希冀激發學界之思考
外,並可供實務界參考。
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.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top