| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 107 === The purpose of this study was to identify the inherent opinion: to distinguish between principal offender and accomplice. The “dualistisches Beteiligungssystem” started with Roman law, and became the mainstream opinion of criminal code. And after the evolution of the criminal law theory, the “Tatherrschaftstheorie” became the basis to distinguish between principal offender and accomplice. However, the interpretation by the “Tatherrschaftstheorie” has theoretically contradictories. In Taiwan, due to influence of Japan and Germany criminal law, it has problems of the distinction between principal offender and accomplice, including the contradictories of different types and the constructional expansion of principal offender.
This study argues that the “Einheitstäterbegriff” is the more reasonable evaluation standard of the principal offender, although it has been criticized for a long time. In fact, the “Einheitstäterbegriff” do not contradict the theoretically cardinal principles as many arguments claimed. Observing the causation between the behavior of the offender and the infringement of the legal goods can solve the problem about the distinction between principal offender and accomplice, simultaneously, can explain the exception of the “Tatherrschaftstheorie”, including “eigenhändige Delikte”, “Pflichtdelikte”, and “echtes Sonderdelikte”.
The “Einheitstäterbegriff” has two types in legislative model: the “formale Einheitstätersystem” and the “funktionelle Einheitstätersystem”. It is more reasonable to adopt the “formale Einheitstätersystem”, because the “Einheitstäterbegriff” based on the causation between the behavior of the offender and the infringement of the legal goods. The criminal responsibility of the principal offender can be evaluated by the definition in criminal code and related criminal theory. And lastly, adopting the constructional strategy of the “funktionelle Einheitstätersystem” can solve the problem of the “dualistisches Beteiligungssystem” appropriately under the existing criminal code.
|
|---|
