具体的打击错误:从故意认定到故意归责

Specific Aberratio Ictus:from the Identification of Intent to the Attribution to Intent

对于具体的打击错误,法定符合说与具体符合说都采取了故意认定的研究路径,并将故意认定与故意归责合二为一。但是,这种做法赋予了故意认定过多的功能,导致了难以克服的困境:要么为了结论的合理性而牺牲故意认定的合理性,要么为了故意认定的合理性而牺牲结论的合理性。为克服上述困境,应该区分故意认定与故意归责;故意认定是针对实行行为而言的,故意归责则是指将实际发生的危害结果归责于之前的故意。具体的打击错误的判断可以分为三个阶层:客观归责、故意认定与故意归责。在肯定了客观归责与故意认定的前提下,如果行为人对危害结果发生在误击对象上有认识可能性,就可以将实际发生的危害结果归责于行为人的故意。

With respect to specific aberratio ictus, both the theory of statutory compliance and the theory of specific compliance adopt the same method for the identification of intent and integrate intent identification and intent attribution. However, such practice gives too many functions to intent identification, resulting in an insurmountable dilemma： either to pursue the reasonability of conclusion at the cost of the reasonability of intent identification, or to adhere to the reasonability of intent identification at the cost of the reasonability of conclusion. Therefore, the distinction between intent identification and intent attribution should be recognized. The former is about the object and expected result, while the latter refers to the attribution of harmful result to intent. The judgment of specific aberratio ictus can be divided into three levels, that is, the judgment of objective attribution, the identification of intent, and the judgment of intent attribution. We should untangle the relation between intent attribution and objective attribution, especially between intent attribution and intent identification. Under the circumstance that objective attribution and intent identification had been confirmed, if the actor has the possibility of foreseeing the harmful result caused in mistaken object, the harmful result can be attributed to the actor＇ s intent and such attribution will not confuse the relationship between intent and negligence. In practice, the theory of intent attribution has more advantages than the theory of intent identification.