文章詳目資料

輔仁法學

  • 加入收藏
  • 下載文章
篇名 準強盜罪之未遂犯
卷期 45
並列篇名 The Attempted Form of the Crime of Quasi-Robbery
作者 陳宏毅
頁次 059-132
關鍵字 強盜罪準強盜罪目的犯未遂犯法解釋論RobberyQuasi-RobberyPurpose of Intention BehaviorThe Criminal Act of no Finishing about OffenceInterpretation in Criminal Law
出刊日期 201306

中文摘要

本文研究準強盜罪,與強盜罪相比擬,其罪質相似,卻不相同。以法律效果來看,準強盜罪並非強盜罪,為何卻賦予相同之法律效果?司法實務的見解,其關鍵點:在於本罪的強暴、脅迫行為,是否已達到如同強盜罪的手段一般,使人難以抗拒為必要。實務的一致見解認為:準強盜罪所實行的強暴、脅迫行為,如果未達到至使不能抗拒的程度,將會使得竊盜或搶奪後,所施用的暴力行為若是危險侵害程度低,當成高危險實害程度的強盜行為,卻因其不同的情節行為,仍要承受相同的法定刑,有違罪刑均衡原則。關於這一點,該法條已經對於目的性的強暴、脅迫行為的不法態樣,以「當場」作為時空上的限縮,本無爭論。但是,由於目的性行為若屬主觀的不法行為,在認定上很難區別主、客觀情形,確實在事實認定上有困難,造成實務上很大的難題。司法院釋字第630號解釋明確表示:準強盜罪的強制手段,須客觀上足以使人難以抗拒的程度,認為本罪與強盜罪只是因果歷程的顛倒,兩罪法益侵害相當,本罪並無違反平等原則,固然解決了本罪暴行之程度與須強盜罪必須等量齊觀。然而,該號解釋似乎仍未對本罪所擬制的基礎及犯罪類型做出明確的界定,合憲性的爭議仍不斷發生。同時,本罪之著手以及既、未遂的判斷標準,也並未因該號解釋而獲得解決,爭議仍不斷發生。故而,本文試圖透過法解釋論,還原該犯罪類型之立法原貌,以符合罪刑法定原則。

英文摘要

The constitutive requirements of the offence of robbery and those of quasi-robbery are different. Though distinct in essence, these two crimes are intended by law-makers to exert the same legal effects on offenders. Why? The key rests on whether or not the acts of threat and violence launched by offenders of quasi-robbery have reached the degree of rendering resistance impossible. In the legal practice field, many experts have held that it would profoundly contradict both the principle of equality, as well as that of accountability, if offenders of quasi-robbery, whose acts of physical violence were only triggered and have a lower degree of danger in nature, were made liable to the severe punishments meant for felons. It has made big-trouble in the judicial system. Theoretically, in Article 329 of the Criminal Code, the law-makers have enumerated fixed patterns of use of force, thus leaving no room of confusion in application. However,since purpose-oriented behavior is totally subjective, and since in practice, it is difficult for law enforcers to determine the motive of the offenders. In Constitutional Interpretation No. 630, the honorable justices officially stipulated that the physical force launched by offenders must have reached the extent of rendering resistance impossible before they could be convicted of quasi-robbery. After the interpretation, the general view in the academic circle acknowledges the crime as a consequential offense. Based on the forgoing explanations, it is the author's argument that the attempted form of quasi-robbery should be judged and determined based on the acts of physical violence that follows, instead of the larceny that precede, the use of threat or violence. This article will like to discuss this issues ,how to interpretation in criminal law.

相關文獻