查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 我國普通毀損罪之反思與重構--以「足生損害」要素為契機
- 食品衛生管理法之行政刑罰規定與相關問題之研究--兼臺灣彰化地方法院100年度矚易字第1號刑事判決之評述
- 食品攙偽假冒與標示不實之入罪化
- 人為操縱市場爭議與鑑識會計的訴訟支援--論意圖抬高或壓低市場交易價格的構成要件
- 鑑識會計與財經犯罪的訴訟支援--論證交法第155條第1項意圖抬高或壓低市場交易價格等的不法要件
- 「財產危險」--一個已經過時的概念?
- 滄桑舊法--論所謂「恐嚇危害安全罪」(刑法第三○五條)
- 公務員圖利罪--變身為結果犯後之困境及其可能出路
- 散發色情小卡片之刑責探討
- 「事實實害」與「事實危險」、「實害構成要件」與「危險構成要件」、「實害犯」與「危險犯」
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 我國普通毀損罪之反思與重構--以「足生損害」要素為契機=The Reflection and Reconstruction of Crime of Property Damage in R.O.C Criminal Code: At a Turning Point of the Constitutive Element "Being Adequate to Render Injury to the Public or Another" |
---|---|
作者 | 黃翊洋; | 書刊名 | 中原財經法學 |
卷期 | 51 2023.12[民112.12] |
頁次 | 頁223-304 |
分類號 | 585.494 |
關鍵詞 | 毀棄; 損壞; 致令不堪用; 足以生損害; 適性犯; 危險根源; 危險犯; 實害犯; 財產支配自由; 意圖; Abandon; Destroy; Renders useless; Being adequate to render injury to the public or another; Root causes of danger; Dangerous crime; Actual damage offense; Property dominance relationship; Intention; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國普通毀損罪因為存有「足以生損害於公眾或他人」此一 構成要件要素,不僅令人對於本罪產生罪質定性之疑問,也叢生 與各要素如「毀棄」、「損壞」、「致令不堪用」之間的扞格及 解釋爭議。為恪守本罪於刑法上之實害犯定性及基本原理,遂有 要求於立法論刪除該要件之呼聲。但是,若能透過刑法釋義學之 操作即能解決要件間之衝突與應付現實之適用難題,而非輕易 訴諸立法論以謀出路,不僅能堅守司法者之分際,尚可避免淪於 窠臼之譏。本文即藉此機會思考已有民事處理機制下,單純毀損 他人之物的場合是否尚存刑罰介入之必要性,利用探究「足生損 害要素」為契機,探究本罪保護法益之內涵,並藉由危險犯與實 害犯間個人法益侵害構造差異之觀察與比較,重新檢視普通毀 損罪之整體結構,據此提出之本文結論,希冀激發學界之思考 外,並可供實務界參考。 |
英文摘要 | The existence of the constitutive element of “being adequate to render injury to the public or another”from article 354 in Taiwan has not only raised questions about the characterization of the crime but also created controversies over the contradiction and interpretation of the elements such as “abandon,” “destroy,”and “renders useless”. To insist on the basic principles of actual damage crime in criminal law, there are appeals for the deletion of this element (which causes injury to the public or another) through legislative procedures. However, rather than intend to find a way to amend or delete the constitutive element via legislative procedures, we should moreover follow the criterion mentioned below: if the conflict between the constitutive elements can be resolved through the operation of legal dogmatics in criminal law, it can deal with the problems of legal application in reality as well at the same time. Therefore, the method mentioned above, not only legal professionals can scrupulously abide by their duties but also avoid the criticism of falling into old ruts. We have an opportunity to consider whether there is still necessary for penal intervention in the case of simple damage to another person's property under the existing order in civil law. We should take the constitutive element of “being adequate to render injury to the public or another” as an opportunity to reflect on the connotation of the legal interest of this crime and the differences under the structure of invading individual legal interests between dangerous crime and actual damage crime by re-examining the overall structure in the crime of property damage. At the end, this article suggests the conclusion can be used to stimulate the thinking of the academic community as well as serve as a reference for the practical community. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。