無論是在德國還是在台灣，實務與學界通說均承認危險前行為這種保證人類型。而在行為人於前行為的階段便已具有招致實害結果之故意的情形，此一故意所為的前行為是否也會建構刑法上的作為義務，學說上則有不同的看法。本文首先透過實例來說明，這裡所涉及的並非只是純理論的討論，而是有其實務上的意義。其次，基於評價上舉輕明重的推論以及行為規範的堅持等理由，本文採取與德國通說相同的立場，認為出於故意所為的危險前行為亦應建構刑法上的作為義務。如此的看法，並不會與現行法上關於中止未遂的規定以及刑事訴訟法上的不自證己罪原則有所衝突。最後，採取如此的立場也讓法律適用者能夠更精確、更充分地評價整體犯行的不法及罪責內涵；因為在例外的情形，後隨之不作為犯的不法或罪責內涵還是有可能會高於前階段的作為犯。

Many scholars in Germany and Taiwan recognize the type of guarantor’s position resulted from his previous act which created a dangerous condition (Ingerenz).When the actor performs his previous act with the intention to cause a harmful result, scholars have different opinions on whether this previous willful act will impose the actor a duty to act. In the beginning, this paper provides different example?cases to show that this topic has its practical values, in addition to the theoretical values. Secondly, based on behavioral norms and argumentum a fortiori, this paper agrees with many German professors voting for the attitude that the previous willful act should impose the actor a duty to act. This conclusion will not contradict to laws related to “abandonment of attempt” or the criminal procedure principle of “the right against self-incrimination”. As a result, people who apply the law can more precisely and adequately evaluate the wrong and the criminal responsibility, because in the exceptional situ ation, the wrong or criminal responsibility of the following omission could be more unacceptable than the previous willful act.