行政法规范之违反与过失实行行为之认定——基于新过失论的阐释

讨论行政法规范之违反与过失实行行为之认定的关系,对于我国过失犯罪,特别是业务过失犯罪的认定,有重大意义。对此,应当从不同的过失犯构造理论出发,做体系性思考。立足于行为无价值的新过失论,将过失实行行为定义为违反结果回避义务,不仅能合理限制过失不法的范围,理论立场上也更为首尾一贯;而且通过注意义务的类型化,更能贯彻刑法的自由保障功能和法益保护功能。在新过失论的框架下,行政法规范上的义务和刑法上的注意义务在范围、性质上均有不同,但也存在相同之处:前者的危险防止义务是以定型的危险为前提而课予一般人的义务,后者则是以个案事态为前提而课予(处于行为人地位的)一般人的义务。违反不以避免构成要件结果为指向的行政法规范上的义务,并不构成对刑法上注意义务的违反。而违反以避免构成要件结果为指向的行政法规范上的义务,如果该义务对于个案中的结果回避是必要的或不足的,则构成对刑法上注意义务的违反;如果该义务对于个案中的结果回避是不必要的、可替代的,或者会起消极作用,则不违反刑法上的注意义务。

Violations of Administrative Regulations and Determination of Acts of Negligent Crime

The research on the relationship between violations of administrative regulations and the determination of acts of negligent crime is of great significance to the determination of negligent crimes, especially crimes of vocational negligence. For this reason, it is essential to adopt a systematic approach to this issue by taking into consideration of different theories of negligence. The new theory of negligence, which is based on the concept of anti-value acts, defines the act of negligent crime as breach of the duty of result avoidance. By doing so, it not only reasonably limits the scope of illegality, but also helps to maintain the consistency of theoretical standpoint. Moreover, by paying more attention to the categorization of the duty of care, this theory is also conductive to the realization of the functions of safeguarding freedom and protecting legal interests. Within the framework of new theory of negligence, the duty under administrative regulations differs in nature and scope from the duty of care under criminal law while at the same time shares some common characteristics with the latter: the former is an obligation based on typical risks whereas the latter is an obligation based on risks in specific case. The breach of a duty under administrative regulations that does not aim at result avoidance does not constitute a breach of the duty of care under criminal law. The breach of a duty under administrative regulations that aims at and is necessary or inadequate for result avoidance constitutes a breach of the duty of care under criminal law. However, if the duty is unnecessary, replaceable or deleterious to result avoidance, then the breach of such a duty does not constitute a breach of the duty of care under criminal law.