不作为犯中先行行为认定理论之质疑

A Query on the Theory of Determining the Prior Act in the Crime of Omission

司法实践中先行行为型不作为犯存在扩大适用的倾向,这主要源于先行行为的认定理论难以回应现实问题。刑法理论认定先行行为遵循"先行行为本身的法律评价"和"先行行为与其所引起的危险之关系"两条路径。但是,违法一元论、规范违反说都不能为先行行为的"义务违反性"提供依据,义务违反性也无法为先行行为提供规范性要素进而推导出作为义务,大量实践证明合法行为能够成立先行行为。先行行为危险归属理论中客观归责标准混淆归责对象,导致先行行为实行行为化、规范目的理论重视危险的方向性,将先行行为限定过窄。支配理论关注危险的现实性,但无法说明支配内涵、支配强度、支配与作为义务的关系等问题,其与客观归责论均不适合作为先行行为的适格危险归属理论。所以,不作为犯中先行行为的认定理论均值得质疑。

In the judicial practice,there is a tendency to expand the application of the prior-act-type omission crime,which is mainly due to the fact that the theory of the prior act is difficult to respond to the practical problems.According to the theory of criminal law,the prior act follows two paths: "the legal evaluation of the prior act itself" and "the relationship between the prior act and the danger".However,the monism of violation of law and the theory of normative violation cannot provide the basis for the "duty violation" of the prior act,nor can the duty violation provide the normative elements for the prior act and then deduce it as an obligation.A number of practices have proved that the legal act can establish the prior act.In the theory of risk attribution of prior act,the objective imputation standard confuses the object of imputation,causes the prior act become behavior,the purpose theory pays attention to the direction of risk,and limits the prior act too narrow.The theory of domination pays attention to the reality of danger,but can’t explain the connotation,intensity,relationship between domination and duty of action.Neither the theory of domination nor the theory of objective imputation is suitable for the theory of proper dangerous attribution as prior act.Therefore,the theory of determining the prior act of omission is questionable.