客观归责理论在不纯正不作为犯中的运用与判断——以“货拉拉案件”为例  

Application and Judgment of Objective Imputation Theory in Offense of Nontypical Omission:Taking the“Huo Lala”Case as an Example

作　　者：钟卢程 ZHONG Lucheng(School of Criminal Law,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200042,China)

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学刑事法学院,上海200042

出　　处：《宜宾学院学报》2023年第2期22-31,共10页Journal of Yibin University

摘　　要：将客观归责理论运用于不纯正不作为犯中,使其与保证人地位理论相结合具有合理性和可行性。客观归责理论在不纯正不作为犯中的具体运用及判断体现为:若要将一个具体结果归责于不作为人,必须满足“不作为与结果之间具有因果性”“不作为维持了既存风险且为法所不允许”“实现了法所不允许维持的既存风险”。这些规则项下还存在若干用于排除结果归责的下位反向规则。据此分析“货拉拉”案件可得结论:本案被告周阳春由于并不处于保证人地位,其维持车某某既存坠车风险的不作为系法所允许,不满足“不作为维持了既存风险且为法所不允许”这一条件,可直接实现出罪。It is reasonable and feasible to apply the objective imputation theory to offense of nontypical omission and combine it with the guarantor status theory.The specific application and judgment of objective imputation theory to offense of nontypical omission is as follows:if one wants to attribute a specific result to the omission person,one must meet the requirements of“causality between omission and result”,“maintaining the existing risk and not allowed by the law”,“realizing the existing risk that is not allowed to maintain by law”.There are also several lower reverse rules under these rules to exclude the imputation of results.In the analysis of the“Huo Lala”case,the defendant Zhou Yangchun is not in the position of guarantor,so his omission to maintain the existing risk of vehicle falling is allowed by the law,and does not meet the condition that“the omission maintains the existing risk and is not allowed by the law”,which can directly realize the crime.

关 键 词：客观归责理论 不纯正不作为犯 保证人义务 先行行为 

分 类 号：D924.11[政治法律—刑法学]