| As the benchmark of the theory of risk realization, the causative potency comparison rule intends to evaluate examples of direct risk realization caused by mutually independent plural behaviors. With respect to the internal foundation, the realization of the legal effect of this rule is premised on the recognition of the abstraction of the result element in the constitutive requirements. To resolve the conflict between the self-responsibility principle and the risk confirmation principle, both of which are generated by the specific result theory, it is more appropriate to attribute the result to a behavior that can independently lead to the abstract result with greater causative potency. With respect to the external boundary, attributing the result to plural behaviors that do not have a relationship of complicity among them is an exception that requires particular provisions or reasons. With respect to the criteria of comparison, the result of imputation is the abstract result reflecting the deterioration of legal interest status. In a case involving the result of death, the proper method is to differentiate the cause and manifestation of the death. Only if the degree of the injury resulting from the “cause of death” is sufficient to lead to the death can the behavior be identified as having a greater causative potency. In the application of the causative potency comparison rule, efforts should be made to avoid corresponding misconceptions and stop the loopholes in penalties resulting from these misconceptions through such legislative measures as creating fictitious joint crimes and setting objective penalty conditions. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号