在過失犯的認定中,結果避免可能性與結果預見可能性并不是對等的概念。之所以要求行為人遵守注意義務,就是斷定可藉此回避法益的損害后果。倘若具體個案中,即便行為人遵守注意義務(法規范義務),也不能防止構成要件結果發生的,雖然違反注意義務行為是具體結果產生的條件原因,而且違反注意義務行為也創設了法所不容許的風險,但結果并非基于行為的違反義務而發生,僅止于制造但是沒有實現具體風險,所以不能將結果歸責于行為人。只有當行為中所蘊含的不受容許危險的特性在具體個案中支配了結果發生時,才有理由堅守這種行為規范(注意義務),才能把結果的發生看作是行為人干的"好事"。

In the affirmation of negligent crime,the concept of the possibility to avoid result is different from the concept of the possibility to foresee result. Since the attention obligation can help avoiding the damage result of legal interest,one is required to abide it. Where one abides his obligation to pay attention but the consequence of constitutive requirements still cannot be prevented,even though the actor’s failure to abide his obligation is the conditional cause of the specific result and such failure has created a risk which is not tolerated by law,said consequence,however,would not be attributed to the actor,because the consequence is not induced by the act which violated the actor’s obligation,and such act only created but did not realize the specific risk.. Only when the not-tolerated risk in the act dominates the result,there is a reason to abide the behavioral norm i. e. the attention obligation,and the result is attributed to the actor.