论文部分内容阅读
监督过失系在一般过失基础上的处罚扩张,对此应保持一定的限度。从可责重点来看,行政监督过失的行为样态应是不作为,其本质在于对职务的藐视、怠惰心理及其指导下的行为。对于作为义务的来源,需要“名义”与“实际”相结合认定。没有履行监督义务是承担刑责的必要非充分条件,行政法上的“不为”需直接指向法益侵害才能上升为刑法上的监督过失。在因果关系的考察上,需重点关注结果的规避可能性,在其能力范围内完成归责,在此应注意假定因果的背景设定。监督过失对预见可能性程度的要求不可能与一般过失完全等同,新过失论与旧过失论相比,在应对监督过失的可罚性问题上,严格了客观上的结果规避义务却缓和了主观上的结果预见可能,对此缓和需要信赖原则的补剂,对合理信赖需从正反两个方向认定。
The supervision of negligence is based on the general negligence of the punishment expansion, which should be maintained to a certain extent. From the point of view can be blamed, the behavior of the administrative supervision of negligence behavior should be omission, its essence lies in contempt for the job, laziness and behavior under its guidance. For the source of the obligation, we need to combine “” nominal “with ” actual “. Failure to fulfill the duty of supervision is a necessary and sufficient condition for assuming criminal responsibility. Administrative law’s ”not for" should be directly directed at law and interests infringement before it can rise to supervisory negligence in criminal law. In the investigation of causation, we should pay attention to the possibility of circumventing the result and fulfill the imputation within the scope of its ability. At this point, we should pay attention to the hypothesis of the causal setting. Compared with the old negligence theory, the new negligence theory compared with the old negligence theory, on the problem of punishing the negligence of supervision, strictly obeying the subjective objective result avoiding obligation and alleviating the subjective The results on the foreseeable, to alleviate the need for the principle of trust supplements, the need for a reasonable trust from both positive and negative directions.