福建警察学院学报
福建警察學院學報
복건경찰학원학보
Journal of Fujian Police Academy
2015年
4期
8-14
,共7页
逻辑%间接故意%过于自信%法益
邏輯%間接故意%過于自信%法益
라집%간접고의%과우자신%법익
logic%indirect intention%over-confident negligence%legal interests
通说对于放任的故意和过于自信的区别存在逻辑上的错误,不利于保护法益,也不利于保障人权。过于自信过失仅限于两种情况:一是在具体的背景下,以一般人的视角进行观察,认为不会有任何危险的。二是行为人认识了构成犯罪事实发生的可能性,但为了被害人的利益不得不为之的。放任与过于自信的区别在于:行为人能否将他人的法益掌控在自己的手中。
通說對于放任的故意和過于自信的區彆存在邏輯上的錯誤,不利于保護法益,也不利于保障人權。過于自信過失僅限于兩種情況:一是在具體的揹景下,以一般人的視角進行觀察,認為不會有任何危險的。二是行為人認識瞭構成犯罪事實髮生的可能性,但為瞭被害人的利益不得不為之的。放任與過于自信的區彆在于:行為人能否將他人的法益掌控在自己的手中。
통설대우방임적고의화과우자신적구별존재라집상적착오,불리우보호법익,야불리우보장인권。과우자신과실부한우량충정황:일시재구체적배경하,이일반인적시각진행관찰,인위불회유임하위험적。이시행위인인식료구성범죄사실발생적가능성,단위료피해인적이익불득불위지적。방임여과우자신적구별재우:행위인능부장타인적법익장공재자기적수중。
Common theory makes a logical mistake in distinguishing between the indirect intention and the over-confident negligence, which is not conducive to the protection of legal interests and human rights. Over-confi-dent negligence should be limited to two situations:(1) Under a specific context, every ordinary person would a-gree that it doesn't exist any danger;(2) The offender is aware of the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, but for the benefit of the victims, he has to resort. So the difference between the indirect intention and the over-confi-dent negligence is whether or not the offender can keep others' legal interests under control.