“实行的着手”的判断标准——形式的客观说再提倡

Judgment Criteria for “Commencement of Committing Action”——Repromotion on Formal Objective Standard

关于“实行的着手”的“形式的客观说”的根源,“弗兰克公式”将“构成要件的行为的开始”作为“实行的着手”。在这种现象形态中,将单纯结果犯中的“实行的着手”的标准与结合犯及其他手段特定型犯罪中的标准区分开,“密接性”标准的根源“必然的共属性”以单纯结果犯为考虑对象。与此相对,在结合犯及其他手段特定型犯罪中不需要“必然的共属性”即“密接性”,“实行的着手”在手段行为开始时即被认可。“实质的客观说”是以“攻击开始”和“危险性”等标准对密接性进行补充判断。从这一点来看,“形式的客观说”和“实质的客观说”具有互补性。此外,在结合犯及其他手段特定型犯罪中,在判断是否为手段时也有使用实质性标准的余地。在“实质的客观说”中,需要“明确存在”“导致既遂的客观危险性”。在作为手段特定型犯罪的诈骗罪中,“实行的着手”并不是作为手段的“欺骗”行为的密接行为,而是“欺骗”的开始即为着手。另一方面,在将“窃取”作为“构成要件的行为”的盗窃罪中,对于“实行的着手”来说,接近客体是不可或缺的。因此,在“偷梁换柱”案件中,欺骗被害人、制造财物占有空隙阶段对窃取行为而言是必要的,如果只是通过电话被骗,则不能认定“实行的着手”。

Frank’s formula,which is the root of the “formal objective theory” regarding the “initiation of execution”,defines it as the “commencement of the constitutive act”.In its phenomenological form,it distinguishes the “initiation of execution” standard for simple consequential crimes from that for combination crimes and other means-specific crimes,and the “inevitable co-attribution”,which is the root of the “closeness” standard,was created with simple consequential crimes in mind.In contrast,“inevitable co-attributes” or “nexus” is not necessary for combination crimes and other means-specific crimes.The “commencement of the commission of the act” is recognized at the time of the commencement of the instrumental act.The “substantive objectivity theory” judges the nexus by supplementing the criteria such as “commencement of the offense” and “dangerousness”.To that extent,the “formal objective theory” and the “substantive objective theory” are mutually complementary.In addition,there is room to use the substantive standard in determining whether or not a crime is a mean to an end,even in the case of a combination crime and other means-specific crimes.Under the “substantial objectivity theory”,an “objective risk of an attempt” must be “clearly recognized”.In the case of fraud,which is a means-specific crime,the “initiation of the act” is not an act closely related to “swindling”,which is a mean to an end,but the initiation of “swindling” is the “start of the act”.On the other hand,in the crime of theft,in which “theft” is a “constitutive act”,access to the object is indispensable for the “initiation of execution”.Therefore,in the case of “swapping operation”,which requires the act of theft at the stage when the victim is tricked into making an opening to take possession of the property,“initiation of execution” is not recognized merely by being tricked over the phone.