论合义务替代行为之本体构造与规范适用

On the Ontological Construction and Normative Application of the Alternative Behavior of Satisfying Duty

合义务替代行为与假定因果关系同属刑法学中的反事实思维,但两者具有不同的法律效果,需要严格区分。从前提要件和结果要件出发的"区分说"显得力有不逮,两者的本质差异应体现在风险来源和结果引发机制上。在假设流程中,合义务替代行为的"结果"是容许风险在规范保护目的范围内的实现,而假定因果关系的"结果"由行为人控制领域之外、不影响规范效力发挥的其他因素所导致,通过对其风险来源及结果引发机制的考察,可以对两者准确区分。合义务替代行为在扩张行为人的行动自由和限制刑罚权方面具有正当性,不仅适用于过失作为犯和不作为犯,同样适用于故意作为犯。

The alternative behavior of satisfying duty and the assumed causal relationship belong to the counterfactual thinking in criminal law,but they have different legal effects thus should be strictly distinguished..The“differentiation theory”from the prerequisites and the outcomes seems to be inappropriate.The essential difference between the two should be reflected in the risk source and the result trigger mechanism.In the hypothesis process,the“result”of the alternative behavior of satisfying duty is to allow the risk to be realized within the scope of the normative protection purpose,and the“result”of the causal relationship is assumed to be outside the control of the actor and other factors that do not affect the normative effect.This leads to an accurate distinction between the two by examining their risk sources of and the mechanism that triggers the results.The obligation to substitute acts is justified in expanding the freedom of movement of the perpetrator and restricting the right to penalties.It applies not only to negligence as offense,omission as offense,but also to intention as offense.