过失犯归责构造之反思与重构

The Reflection and Reconstitution of the Imputation Structure of Negligent Crime

对于过失犯主客观要件的争论存在两个面向上的混淆。就评价标准而言,主观标准与客观标准之间并非互斥关系,而是具有层次的逻辑关系;就行为构造而言,过失的本质不是客观的外在行为,而是主观上违背义务的无认识状态。仅凭客观构成要件不足以承担规范评价的任务,若通过客观归责提前排除过失犯的成立将会产生不合理的结论。规范归责应容纳主观要素,过失的认定是事实要素与规范要素的结合。当行为人认识到了足以证明某一危险的事实情状,本来能够通过履行规范所期待的内在注意义务从而保持避免构成要件实现的能力,但却违背了这一期待,使自己没有能力避免构成要件的实现,因而成立过失。行为人的认知是注意义务的事实基础,注意义务则是过失认定的规范核心,过失归责应以危险制造为检验重心。

There are two aspects of confusion about the argument of the subjective and object elements of negligent crimes. As far as evaluation criterion is concerned,the subjective criterions and objective criterions are not mutually exclusive but have a hierarchical logical relationship;in terms of behavioral structure,the essence of negligent crime is not objective external behavior,but a status of ignorance that subjectively violates the obligations. The objective constitutive element is not sufficient to undertake the task of normative evaluation,and if the conviction of negligent crime is excluded in advance through objective imputation,unreasonable conclusions will be generated. Normative evaluation should accommodate subjective elements,and the determination of negligent crime is a combination of factual elements and normative elements. When the crime suspect recognizes a factual situation that is sufficient to prove a certain danger,he could have maintained the ability to avoid the realization of constitutive elements by performing the inner duty of attention expected by the norm,but he violated this expectation and made himself unable to avoid the realization of the crime constitutive elements,and thus a negligent crime is convicted. The crime suspect’s cognition is the factual basis of the duty of attention,and the duty of attention is the normative core of the determination about negligent crime.