北大法律评论
北大法律評論
북대법률평론
2013年
1期
115-142
,共28页
过失犯%自陷风险%注意义务%同意%不法
過失犯%自陷風險%註意義務%同意%不法
과실범%자함풍험%주의의무%동의%불법
negligent crime%self-endangering%due care%consent%wrong-doing
德国刑法判例上过失犯中被害人自陷风险问题的探讨可谓源远流长，它肇始于德意志帝国法院的梅梅尔河案，而确立于德国联邦最高法院的海洛因注射器案，在此过程中，逐步发展成为德国刑法上一个独立的问题领域。关于被害人自陷风险的体系性地位，德国刑法判例经历了以下的立场变迁过程：从昙花一现的罪责层面的注意义务排除，到违法性层面的被害人同意，再到构成要件层面（参与他人自我危害的自我负责不可罚），最后形成分别在构成要件层面（自我负责的自我危害）与违法性层面（同意他人危害化）处理被害人自陷风险问题的格局，从而确立了被害人自陷风险问题的体系性地位：被害人自陷风险是一个不法层面的问题而不是一个罪责层面的问题。虽然如此，德国判例上区分被害人自陷风险两种类型的做法既不具有正当性的根据，也缺乏适当的区分标准。对于这两种类型的被害人自陷风险，应当给予相同的规范评价，即应当承认两者均具有排除行为人之不法的效力，并且在这一前提下探讨这种排除不法的正当化根据。
德國刑法判例上過失犯中被害人自陷風險問題的探討可謂源遠流長，它肇始于德意誌帝國法院的梅梅爾河案，而確立于德國聯邦最高法院的海洛因註射器案，在此過程中，逐步髮展成為德國刑法上一箇獨立的問題領域。關于被害人自陷風險的體繫性地位，德國刑法判例經歷瞭以下的立場變遷過程：從曇花一現的罪責層麵的註意義務排除，到違法性層麵的被害人同意，再到構成要件層麵（參與他人自我危害的自我負責不可罰），最後形成分彆在構成要件層麵（自我負責的自我危害）與違法性層麵（同意他人危害化）處理被害人自陷風險問題的格跼，從而確立瞭被害人自陷風險問題的體繫性地位：被害人自陷風險是一箇不法層麵的問題而不是一箇罪責層麵的問題。雖然如此，德國判例上區分被害人自陷風險兩種類型的做法既不具有正噹性的根據，也缺乏適噹的區分標準。對于這兩種類型的被害人自陷風險，應噹給予相同的規範評價，即應噹承認兩者均具有排除行為人之不法的效力，併且在這一前提下探討這種排除不法的正噹化根據。
덕국형법판례상과실범중피해인자함풍험문제적탐토가위원원류장，타조시우덕의지제국법원적매매이하안，이학립우덕국련방최고법원적해락인주사기안，재차과정중，축보발전성위덕국형법상일개독립적문제영역。관우피해인자함풍험적체계성지위，덕국형법판례경력료이하적립장변천과정：종담화일현적죄책층면적주의의무배제，도위법성층면적피해인동의，재도구성요건층면（삼여타인자아위해적자아부책불가벌），최후형성분별재구성요건층면（자아부책적자아위해）여위법성층면（동의타인위해화）처리피해인자함풍험문제적격국，종이학립료피해인자함풍험문제적체계성지위：피해인자함풍험시일개불법층면적문제이불시일개죄책층면적문제。수연여차，덕국판례상구분피해인자함풍험량충류형적주법기불구유정당성적근거，야결핍괄당적구분표준。대우저량충류형적피해인자함풍험，응당급여상동적규범평개，즉응당승인량자균구유배제행위인지불법적효력，병차재저일전제하탐토저충배제불법적정당화근거。
There has been a long history on the discussion of Self-Endangering of Victim in Negligent Crime in German criminal case law.It can be dated back to Mermel Case decided by German Imperial Court and established by Heroine Case decided by German Federal Court.During this process, this issue has developed in-to a independent area of research.The systematic position of Self-Endangering of Victim in Negligent Crime evolved from the exclusion of due care to the consent of victim, from the definition of crime to the level of wrongfulness.Finally this issue was divided into two levels, i.e., the level of definition of crime and the level of wrongfulness.Therefore, this issue is a problem of wrongdoing but not a one of cul-pability.Nevertheless, the distinction between self-endangering and endangering by another in German case law can neither be justified nor be adequately distinguished from each other.These two types of self-endangering should be given the same eval-uative assessment.That is to say, the exculpating effect of these two types should be recognized and the justification of this exculpation should be discussion under this precondition.
