不纯正不作为犯的作为义务来源应采取结合说  

Combination of Substance and Form Should Be Adopted in the Source of Obligation of Non-typical Crime of Omission

作　　者：戴小强 DAI Xiao-qiang(College for Criminal Law Science,Beijing Normal University,Beijing 100875,China)

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院,北京100875

出　　处：《河北广播电视大学学报》2018年第3期66-72,共7页Journal of Hebei Radio & TV University

摘　　要：不纯正不作为犯的作为义务来源,形式说和实质说都面临着不同程度的质疑。不纯正不作为犯的作为义务来源同时在形式和实质两方面的限定,才能科学限定处罚范围。并且在判断时,应坚持先实质到形式的判断顺序。在实质层面,行为人负有作为义务的实质条件有两个:(1)行为人对事实上控制的危险源造成的法益侵害具有现实的支配性,或对脆弱法益遭受的侵害具有现实的支配性;(2)法益面临紧迫的危险。在形式层面,依然采用我国传统的形式四分说。As for the source of obligation of non-typical crime of omission, either formal or substantive argument is challenged to some degrees. Only limiting both form and substance for the source of obligation of non-typical crime of omission can it define scientifically the scope of the penalty. In the judgment, we should insist on the order of judgment from the substantive to the formal. At the substantive level, there are two substantive conditions for the perpetrator to have obligations：（ 1） the perpetrator of the actual control of the risk of legal violations has a practical dominance; or the violation to the fragility of the law has a practical dominance;（ 2） legal interests are facing an immediate danger. At the formal level, the traditional Chinese form of quartering is still used.

关 键 词：不纯正不作为犯 义务来源 形式化 实质化 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]