刑法正當事由效力位階之辯證

方文宗

依法令行為 ； 業務正當行為 ； 正當防衛行為 ； 法治國原則 ； 正向社會期待 ； conduct performed in accordance with law or order ； proper conduct in the course of due business ； legitimate self-defense ； rule of law ； positive social expectation

東海大學法學研究

61期（2021 / 04 / 01）

1 - 39

繁體中文

刑法正當事由，表面上雖然造成他人權利侵害，但由於為法律所容許的行為，不僅不構成犯罪，反而是合法正當的權利行為。正當事由類型，在位階層次上未曾被區分，然而位階層次不同，法律所賦予權利亦不同。依法令行為，屬於法律允許的積極行為，並要求積極的行為，位階層次最高；業務正當行為，屬於半積極的行為，為社會正向期待的行為，位階層次次之，正當防衛行為，屬於純粹消極的被動行為，在無法立即獲得公權力保護狀況下，容許的權利行為，位階層次最低。正當事由界限判斷，依法令之行為，必須是明確的法律授權，且授權應符合層級化法律保留規範，執行不得逾越必要界限；業務正當行為，必須遵守法令及標準作業程序，且是社會期待的行為；正當防衛行為，防衛必須考量法益、手段與方式的衡平，且須以最大寬容原則，判定防衛行為是否過當。

As prescribed in Criminal Code, just cause, a probable detriment to others' rights on the face of it, is conferred by law. Therefore, instead of being an element constituting a crime, a just cause is a legal and legitimate right of conduct. The stages of just cause have never been distinguished and classified. However, rights conferred by law are corresponding to different legal stages. To be specific, a conduct performed in accordance with law or order is considered positive behavior granted and at the same time required by law. This type of conduct is classified as the highest stage. Then, proper conduct in the course of due business, considered less active but meeting positive social expectations, belongs to the second stage. Legitimate self-defense, purely passive behavior and a right of conduct granted by law when public power cannot be timely provided for protection, falls into the lowest legal stage. The boundaries of just cause and a conduct performed in accordance with law or order should be legal authority explicitly prescribed. Meanwhile, such authority shall follow the criteria of the classification of legal reservation and the performance of the conduct shall not go across the boundaries that are required to stay within. Proper conduct in the course of due business shall comply with laws and orders as well as standard operation procedures. This type of conduct shall meet social expectations. Regarding legitimate elf-defense, the balance between legal interest, means and methods should be taken into consideration. In addition, the maximum tolerance principle shall apply to determine if it's excessive self-defense.

1. 方文宗(2019)。警械使用正當性之刑法界限。東海大學法學研究，57，51-86。
   連結：
2. 方文宗(2020)。警察追車正當性界限之探討。高大法學論叢，15(2)，135-178。
   連結：
3. 周漾泝(2019)。正當防衛之法理基礎與成立界線：以法權原則為論述起點。臺大法學論叢，48(3)，1223-1278。
   連結：
4. 許恒達(2016)。從個人保護原則重構正當防衛。臺大法學論叢，45(1)，315-393。
   連結：
5. Becknell, Conan,Mays, Larry,Giever, Dennis M.(1999).Policy restrictiveness and police pursuits.Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,22(1),93-110.
6. Corrado, Michael Louis(2010).Professor Fontaine and Self-Defense: A Reply to His Rejoinder.American Criminal Law Review,47(1),105-108.
7. Fletcher, G. P.(1998).Basic Concepts of Criminal Law.N.Y.:Oxford.
8. Hasnas, John(2014).Lobbying and Self-Defense.Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy,12(Special Issue),391-412.
9. Merriam, John J.(2010).Natural Law and Self-Defense.Military Law Review,206,43-87.
10. Nourse, V.F.(2001).Self-Defense and Subjectivity.University of Chicago Law Review,68(4),1235-1308.
11. Sangero, Boazm(2010).Heller's Self-Defense.New Criminal Law Review,13(3),449-484.
12. Weidner, Steven A.(1967).Instructing on Self-Defense.JAG Journal,21(3),79-82.
13. 王皇玉(2019).刑法總則.新學林.
14. 余振華(2017).刑法總論.三民.
15. 李惠宗(2012).憲法要義.元照.
16. 林山田(2005).刑罰學.臺灣商務.
17. 林山田(2001).刑事程序法.五南.
18. 林山田(2008).刑法通論（上冊）.作者自版.
19. 林東茂(2019).刑法總則.一品.
20. 林東茂(2020).病人自主與刑法兼論死亡協助.一品.
21. 林鈺雄(2019).新刑法總則.元照.
22. 柯耀程(2004)。正當防衛界限之認定─評最高法院 88 年台上字第1663 號判決。刑法問題評釋
23. 柯耀程(2014).刑法釋論Ⅰ.一品.
24. 柯耀程(2017).刑法概論.一品.
25. 柯耀程(2016)。用槍過當？─評最高法院 104 年度台上字第 3901 號、臺灣高等法院 104 年度上訴字第 787 號、桃園地方法院 103年度矚訴字第 19 號刑事判決。裁判時報，45，33-39。
26. 高金桂(2003).利益衡量與刑法之犯罪判斷.作者自版.
27. 陳英淙(2011)。由法治國概念探討憲法法治國家原則之內涵。警大法學論集，21，67-108。
28. 黃惠婷(2019).刑法總則.新學林.
29. 蔡墩銘(1990).刑法總則爭議問題研究.五南.
30. 韓忠謨(1979).刑法原理.作者自版.

1. 曾麒諺(2023)。以命令審查能力調整軍人執行違法命令之司法審查密度－兼評最高法院102年度台上字第4092號刑事判決。軍法專刊，69(2)，25-45。