Research On The Results Imputation Of Negligent Crime

In the extent of negligent crime, the perpetrator foresee his behavior may cause a result which can damage legal interest, and he infringes the safety rules that social life requires, thus damage the legal interest. However, the consequence still occurs even if he performed his duties well under certain circumstances. On this occasion, whether the result can be attributed to the perpetrator? There are usually two conclusions in juridical practice:First, actor is not guilty in accordance with force majeure. Second, actor is guilty in accordance with criminal negligence. Adjudication will be totally different in similar case, even if conclusion is the same, there is also no uniform thinking and standard in judicatory ground, losing the fairness and balance in criminal law. I believe that discussing results imputation in negligent crime is not only theoretical speculation, but also has practical significance and offers a moment for promoting particularity and penetrate in the theory of negligent crime.By inspecting the theoretical foundation of the judgment in Germany、 Japan and Taiwan region, discussing Possibility of avoiding result theory、 Relative causality theory、Hypothetical causality theory、Risk-increasing theory one by one, reflection their predicaments, try to find a reasonable method to solve the imputation of negligent crime.This paper argues that, objective imputation theory draws the boundaries of attribution and imputation, constructed more refinement, standardization system of negligent crime. Under the framework of objective imputation theory, the procedure of "legal alternative behavior theory" which can deal with the imputation of negligent crime is:First of all, building the hypothetical causal processes with legal alternative behavior. When choose legal alternative behavior, we should consult two criterion:one is the action purpose of the perpetrator, the other one is the behavior should closest the banned risk but is still within the tolerable risk. Second, inspecting whether the same consequence will happen in the hypothetical causal processes. If not happen, comply with the duty of care can avoid the infringement on legal interest, negligent crime is valid; if it still happens, then complying with the duty of care cannot effectively avoid violating legal interests, or according to the principle of "in dubio pro reo:,negligent crime is not valid; finally, other causes impacting Results imputation should be surveyed, including the tolerable risk in the phases of risk-making and protective scope of the rule in phases of risk-realizing.