刑法中容许的案情认识错误之司法审查  

The Examination of the Wrong Judgment of the Factual Conditions of Justification

作　　者： 孙晓倩(译) 蔡桂生(译) Stephan Christoph

机构地区：[1]德国雷根斯堡大学法律系 [2]中国人民大学法学院 [3]中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心暨法学院 [4]德国波恩大学

出　　处：《法治现代化研究》2024年第3期190-200,共11页Law and Modernization

摘　　要：以假想防卫、假想避险等情形为其内容的容许的案情认识错误,是刑法总则犯罪论中的“经典问题”。为良好地解答这道有挑战性的难题,应当明了与该论题有关的各种意见的相应理论背景,以及其所对应的各种犯罪论构造。容许的案情认识错误与容许错误不同,前者是对本体性的具体案情发生了认识错误,而后者是对规范性的刑法条文本身产生了理解偏差。尽管在容许的案情认识错误问题上产生了严格罪责论、消极的构成要件要素论、排除故意不法的限制罪责论和法律效果援用之限制罪责论四种不同意见,但是,以足够的信心分别权衡这各种意见的相应论据,可以在这四种方案中做出理性的选择,从而很好地回答容许的案情认识错误的问题。The wrong judgment of the factual conditions of justification,which consists of situations such as imaginary defense and imaginary emergency,is a“classic issue”in the tripartite structure of offences in the general part of criminal law.In order to answer this challenging issue,it is important to be clear about the theoretical backgrounds of the various opinions related to this issue and the corresponding structures of examination of offences.The wrong judgment of the factual conditions of justification is different from the mistake of mere criminal law.The former is a mistake of the concrete ontological facts of the case,while the latter is a misunderstanding of the normative text itself of criminal law.Although there are four different theories of the issue of the wrong judgment of the factual conditions of justification,namely,the liability theory in a strict sense,the theory of negative constitutive elements,the liability theory of negating intentional wrongdoings,and the liability theory of legal effect diversion,the aforesaid issue can be answered well by rationally choosing one of the four theories by weighing the corresponding arguments of each of them with sufficient confidence.

关 键 词：假想防卫 容许的案情认识错误 犯罪构造 意见分歧 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学] D926[政治法律—法学]