本文關(guān)鍵詞：行政法規(guī)范之違反與過(guò)失實(shí)行行為之認(rèn)定——基于新過(guò)失論的闡釋，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

行政法規(guī)范之違反與過(guò)失實(shí)行行為之認(rèn)定——基于新過(guò)失論的闡釋

[1]

《Cass Journal of Law》

北京航空航天大學(xué)法學(xué)院

文章摘要：討論行政法規(guī)范之違反與過(guò)失實(shí)行行為之認(rèn)定的關(guān)系。對(duì)于我國(guó)過(guò)失犯罪，特別是業(yè)務(wù)過(guò)失犯罪的認(rèn)定，有重大意義。對(duì)此，應(yīng)當(dāng)從不同的過(guò)失犯構(gòu)造理論出發(fā)，做體系性思考。立足于行為無(wú)價(jià)值的新過(guò)失論，將過(guò)失實(shí)行行為定義為違反結(jié)果回避義務(wù)，不僅能合理限制過(guò)失不法的范圍，理論立場(chǎng)上也更為首尾一貫；而且通過(guò)注意義務(wù)的類型化，更能貫徹刑法的自由保障功能和法益保護(hù)功能。在新過(guò)失論的框架下，行政法規(guī)范上的義務(wù)和刑法上的注意義務(wù)在范圍、性質(zhì)上均有不同，但也存在相同之處：前者的危險(xiǎn)防止義務(wù)是以定型的危險(xiǎn)為前提而課予一般人的義務(wù)，后者則是以個(gè)案事態(tài)為前提而課予（處于行為人地位的）一般人的義務(wù)。違反不以避免構(gòu)成要件結(jié)果為指向的行政法規(guī)范上的義務(wù)，并不構(gòu)成對(duì)刑法上注意義務(wù)的違反。而違反以避免構(gòu)成要件結(jié)果為指向的行政法規(guī)范上的義務(wù)，如果該義務(wù)對(duì)于個(gè)案中的結(jié)果回避是必要的或不足的，則構(gòu)成對(duì)刑法上注意義務(wù)的違反；如果該義務(wù)對(duì)于個(gè)案中的結(jié)果回避是不必要的、可替代的，，或者會(huì)起消極作用，則不違反刑法上的注意義務(wù)。

Abstr：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 systemat- ic approach to this issue by taking into consideration of different theories of negligence. The new theo- ry 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 ille- gality, 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

文章關(guān)鍵詞：

Keyword：:administrative regulations, act of negligent crime, new theory of negligence, the duty ofresult avoidance

作者信息：會(huì)員可見(jiàn)

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：行政法規(guī)范之違反與過(guò)失實(shí)行行為之認(rèn)定——基于新過(guò)失論的闡釋，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。