earticle

영어

This paper mainly studies the objective elements of criminal omission and the problems involved in the objective factors. Moreover, in order for criminal omission to be considered as essential in the same nature as a crime, the intention of the subjective element is especially discussed. In China and Japan, because there is no regulation on the issue of criminal omission, the scholars do not put the subjective elements of criminal omission into their research object. Therefore, the omission of subjective elements of crime has become a problem of the case, especially in the Japanese Academy of trial into relevant examples of questions about the crime of arson, Study on the subjective elements of the problem to be discussed the significance as well as related criminal and the criminal omission should in the elements of intent to analyze, and as a form of obligation, in fact according to the specific content of the understanding of human behavior are discussed. According to the above analysis, it is necessary to accept the objective criminal facts, such as the existence of the obligation and its content, and the understanding of the result. According to the above conditions, it can be said that the question of "taking advantage of the danger that has occurred" has become clear in Japan's Grand Court, and that it is not necessary to examine the subjective elements of the criminal omission. And by analyzing the omission of subjective elements of crime analysis, express the purpose specified in Fourteenth China in criminal law, it is necessary to review the purpose in subjective factors of criminal omission, put foucs on the research of establishment condition of the criminal omission, not only to review the source of obligations of the criminal omission, and the subjective elements of criminal omission make plays in its role in the condition of this point is also great.

일본어

本稿は，主に不真正不作為犯における客観的要素と，その客観的要素に関する諸問題について述べ，不真正不作為犯が作為犯と同等に扱われるために必要な要素の中で，特に主観的要素としての故意について検討を加える．不真正不作為犯について立法上の規定がないために主観的要素についてそれほど検討がなされてこなかった中国と日本において，不真正不作為犯における主観的要素が問題となった判例，特に日本の大審院で問題となった放火罪に関する事例の分析を通じて，主観的要素が問題とされた意義について検討し，作為犯と不真正不作為犯における構成要件的故意に関して考察を加え，さらに作為義務における形式的，実質的根拠説の具体的内容に対する行為者の認識について検討する．これによって，不真正不作為犯の故意について，客観的犯罪事実の認識，つまり，作為義務の存在とその内容，および，結果に対する認識・認容が必要であることから，日本では，上述の大審院で問題になった「既発の危険を利用する意思」は，不真正不作為犯における主観的要素を考察する際に必要ではないということを明らかにすることができる．さらに，日本での不真正不作為犯における主観的要素についての検討を通じて，中国刑法14条においても，不真正不作為犯における主観的要素である故意に関して再検討する必要があることを明示しつつ，不真正不作為犯においては,客観的要素である作為義務の検討も重要であるが、主観的要素も不真正不作為犯が成立するにかなり影響を与えていることを示すことに重点をおく.