法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論警察之干預權與阻卻違法事由(On the Police's Right to Intervene and to Prevent Illegal Acts)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 周慶東
出版日期: 2023.06
刊登出處: 台灣/玄奘法律學報第 39 期/1-25 頁
頁  數: 16 點閱次數: 216
下載點數: 64 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 周慶東
關 鍵 詞: 強制處分合義務裁量事物管轄違法性正當防衛
中文摘要: 警察執行任務時經常須動用強制力,當對於上述強制處分之判斷產生錯誤時,形成實質違法性,對於接受此強制處分之人民一方而言,其充足刑法阻卻違法事由之各項要素。按刑法法理,人民可以對具有實質違法性之強制行為主張正當防衛而阻卻其攻擊行為之違法性。對此種推論,德國聯邦法院認為這樣的認定,對於公共利益之維持及公務員人身之保護有所影響,因此設定只要高權行為符合特定條件便具有“國家錯誤優位”性質。同時這使得人民能較為冷靜地以法上權利救濟之途徑來維護其受妨礙之權利。再者,由利益衝突角度考察,刑法之正當防衛首先是設定在國家缺席之狀態下,才允許人民自行實施正當防衛權限,畢竟在法治國制度中,應由國家獨佔武力行使權限,唯有當國家本身無法或不及保護人民權利時,始賦予人民以自我保護之權限。國家為實現特定目的執行強制處分對人民權利造成妨礙時,兩者間之利益衝突屬法上衝突性質,此種性質迥異於刑法正當防衛中個人權利間之衝突性質,對此應透過法上救濟方式來解決之方屬正的,而非經由相互武力之展現來升高衝突程度,國家應從原本的干預權限基礎中找出貫徹自己執行高權行為之依據,不宜在面對人民之抵抗時,也主張國家本身得依據阻卻違法法理,如此論據要非符合正當防衛制度之精神。亦即刑法正當防衛之設置不應優先用以解決國家與人民間之法上利益衝突。
警察人員執行職務行為時,只要具有土地與事物權限,且符合合義務裁量之判斷,便形成刑法上之形式合法性,儘管實質內容發生錯誤而具實質違法性,此種違法性並不能直接作為人民對抗該強制行為之依據而逕自主張正當防衛法理,故對此種形式合法卻實質違法之職務行為賦予一種“刑法特殊合法性”概念。
英文關鍵詞: Compulsory punishmentdiscretion in compliance with obligationsjurisdiction over mattersillegalitylegitimate defense
英文摘要: The police often have to use coercive force when performing their duties. When there is an error in the judgment of the above-mentioned compulsory punishment, it will constitute a substantial illegality. For the people who accept this compulsory punishment, it is sufficient to prevent all the elements of the illegal matter in criminal law. According to the legal principles of criminal law, people can claim legitimate defense against a coercive act that is substantively illegal and prevent the illegality of the attack. Regarding this inference, the German Federal Court believed that such a determination would have an impact on the maintenance of public interests and the personal protection of civil servants. Therefore, it was determined that as long as high-power behavior meets specific conditions, it has the nature of “state wrong superiority”. At the same time, this enables the people to calmly safeguard their hindered rights through legal rights remedies. Furthermore, from the perspective of conflicts of interest, the legitimate defense of criminal law is first set in the absence of the state, allowing the people to exercise their legitimate defense authority on their own. After all, in the rule of law system, the state should have the exclusive power to exercise force. When the state itself is unable or unable to protect the people’s rights, it will only grant the people the authority to protect themselves. When the state implements compulsory punishment to achieve a specific purpose and hinders people’s rights, the conflict of interests between the two is a legal conflict. This nature is very different from the nature of the conflict between individual rights in legitimate defense under criminal law. This should be dealt with through legal means. It is only fair to solve die problem through relief rather than escalating the level of conflict through mutual displays of force. The state should find the basis for implementing its high-power actions from the original basis of intervention authority. It is not appropriate to face people’s resistance., also advocates that the state itself must rely on the legal basis to prevent illegal acts. Such arguments must be in line with the spirit of the legitimate defense system. That is to say, the establishment of legitimate defense in criminal law should not be used first to resolve the legal conflict of interests between the state and the people.
When police officers perform their duties, as long as they have authority over land and things and comply with the judgment of duty, it will form formal legality in criminal law. Even if the substantive content is wrong and it is substantively illegal, such illegality cannot be directly used as The people resisted the basis of the compulsory act and directly advocated the legal theory of self-defense. Therefore, the concept of “special legality of criminal law” was given to this formally legal but substantively illegal official behavior.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、事實概述
參、德國聯邦法院之見解
肆、實質不法內涵
伍、警察法上之干預權及裁量
陸、職務行為的體系論據以及妨礙公務罪之考察
 一、職務行為之管轄及形式性規範
 二、妨礙公務罪之考察
柒、我國刑法考察觀點
捌、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
周慶東,論警察之干預權與阻卻違法事由,玄奘法律學報,第 39 期,1-25 頁,2023年06月。
返回功能列