中文摘要

本研究計畫擬以實務與學說交替檢驗的方式，描繪出在故意的認定上，實務與 學說各自的真實面貌與問題所在，藉著相互印證與檢驗，嘗試突破學說與實務分治的僵 局。過去本人由於判決的數量相當龐大，受限於時間乃未能逐一檢視所有判決，亦無法 綜合性地對於相關判決進行相互之間的分析比較，因此尚欠缺全面且有系統性之探討研 究，恐有見樹而不見林之疑。是故，擬以提出此一研究計畫之方式，盼能有效率地結合 研究助理之篩選及協助，以一年為期，逐步分析所有最高法院相關刑事判決書，觀察我 國實務上如何在判決中說明認定故意之理由，作一個完整而有系統性之整理分析。 將學說與實務交互檢視的意義，首先在於，反思與審視刑法上諸多故意學說的 實際意義，能否在真實的案件上提供可行的判斷標準，亦即所謂的理論是否能提出一套 切實可行的解決方案，抑或是治絲益棻徒增困擾，甚或是流於空談不切實際。其次，若 將諸學說適用於實務上已出現之具體個案，一方面可以展現各理論之間的實際差異，在 運用上究竟有何不同，換言之，雖然標準各有不同，但所欲檢驗的事實及結果是否真有 所出入，應透過實際案例予以檢討；另一方面，也將顯現實務判決和學說之間的判斷基 礎與標準在何處出現歧異。 再者，藉由對於判決進行全面而有系統性的研究，才能清楚地分析出，我國實 務是否對於故意的認定有無固定之判斷標準，並以此了解在個案與通案法律意見有所出 入時，其可能之理由為何。以下舉一例說明之：最高法院對於行為人以蝴蝶刀刺入被害 人胸部之行為能否認為係具有殺人罪故意，曾著有前後不一之判決，最高法院對於上述 極為相近之事實卻作出結論相左的判決，使人若墜入五里霧中，不知何者係認定殺人故 意之標準並可作為預測判決之基礎。由此，顯而易見的是，有必對於判決進行全面而有 系統性的研究，而其中尤其以殺人與傷害故意之間的區分具有重要性，因為兩者的區分 判定不但在學說上是著述的重點，可供研究的實務判決數量豐富，而且更可一併檢討傷 害致死（加重結果犯）以及遺棄罪（危險犯）之主觀要件，實務上的意義相當重大。

English Abstract

The proposed one-year research project aims to explore how the committer’s intention (Vorsatz) is to be determined as well as applied in light of theory and practice in German and Taiwanese criminal law. Through carefully examining relevant decisions made by Taiwan’s Highest Court, namely the Supreme Court of the Republic of China, this research project purports to systematically analyze the Court’s reasoning with respect to the judgment on whether and in what sense a specific commitment results from the committer’s intention. By concentrating on the determination of intention both in theory and in practice, this research project intends not only to observe the interaction between theoretical and practical developments, but more importantly to examine the practical significance of theories of intention which are developed especially by German legal scholars. As is well known, the academic debates on the determination of intention have never come to an end. Therefore, a comprehensive examination on the court decisions should be able to help clarify whether and how some theories provide judges with a more persuasive way to determine the constitution of intention, while some others do not. Furthermore, a careful analysis on the court decisions helps show a clearer picture on whether Taiwan’s Highest Court has ever developed – or at least intended to develop – a reliable set of standards according to which the intention of committers can be rationally and consistently determined. From the perspective of this research project, the distinction between the intention of homicide and the intention of causing bodily harm best illustrate the practical significance of intention-determination. In this sense, the evaluation of the court decisions should be based upon a thorough deliberation on how the court determines committer’s intention in offenses of homicide and in offenses of causing bodily harm. 

資料來源：https://goo.gl/Z26F25