傷害罪的研究，在我國學說實務上對於特定的議題可能有所分歧，但原則上已然有一定的研究成果與結論，對於身體或是健康的定義，或者是所涵攝的範圍等等。然而隨著社會發展，以及對於個人身體期待有更為完整的保護，除了生理機能上的傷害以外，對於心理、精神、或是情緒上的傷害，是否能夠被劃歸於傷害罪的保護範圍，也應有其討論空間。
本文試圖由保護法益出發，討論心理傷害在身體法益的角度下其存在的可能，如果可能存在，則在現行的條文下應該做如何的解釋。這並不是一個純粹學術的討論，而是一個貼近社會每個個體的議題，每個社會個體在社會中的活動，都可能造成他人心理或是情緒上的不愉快；相反的，也可能因為他人的行為而有心理或情緒上的不愉快。這些事實每天重複的發生在我們周遭，重點在於是否有注意到這些心理傷害存在，以及如何給予心理傷害評價。
肯認心理傷害的概念是存在後，如果要作更細緻的分析，就必須先定義心理傷害的概念，去尋找在哪些情況之下，會成為具有法律意義的心理傷害，而為傷害罪之保護範圍。將其具體化，也就是心理傷害的傷害結果是必須符合一些標準的，如果欠缺標準，則會使心理傷害的概念浮動，而可能過度擴張其範圍，故若該結果欠缺實質的情緒傷害、或是未使被害人的反應非屬正常範圍等，則不認為其為心理傷害，而可能是一種負面的情緒反應而已。
心理傷害因為其本質較為特別，是何種行為導致心理傷害結果的存在，也就是行為與結果之間的因果關係並不甚清楚。其理由在於，在心理傷害的情形，特定行為是否確實造成心理傷害結果並不是客觀明顯可見的，是以一個心理傷害結果的存在，是由A行為或是B行為所導致，或是由A、B數行為一同造成，除非有明確的事實證據可以作為依據，否則因果關係的建立上，都只能透過人類經驗的累積作為參考依據，而無法使用條件理論來作為判斷標準，是以在此情形下，透過人類經驗而建立因果關係的假設因果關係理論，在論理上似乎會是比較實用也比較合理的標準。
在因果關係的確立後，同時必須考量該結果是否可以歸責於行為人，如果該行為在社會上是被允許的，則即使該行為可能有造成他人心理傷害的風險，該風險就應該被容許而會是容許風險。而在社會中因為有親疏程度不同之人際關係，如果人與人之間的關係較為緊密，在社會共識上會提高容許風險的門檻，而擴大容許風險的範圍，在結論上，就會是該行為雖然造成心理傷害結果，但是因為該行為本身帶有傷害結果的風險是社會所已經認識且允許的，是以即使該風險確實實現，社會也不會予以處罰。
關鍵字：傷害、心理傷害、負面情緒、情緒傷害、實質情緒傷害、正常範圍、人類經驗、假設因果關係、容許風險 / The researches of assault and battery may exist difference in specific issues between theories and practice, but in general, the researches have got some results and had conclusions, like the definition of body or health, or the area which assault and battery including. However, due to the developing of the society and the more desire to protect individual body, except the harm to the physical functions, if the harm to mind or emotion could be classified as the range of assault and battery may be worth discussing as well.
This thesis tries to start from the legal interest(Rechtgut), to talk about the possibility of mental injury included in the legal interest of body. If the legal interest of body include the mental harm, then how to explain the articles which are currently in effect. This is not a pure academic discuss, but a issue which close to every individual in society. The activities of individuals in society may cause mental or emotional unpleasantness. On the contrary, mental or emotional unpleasantness might be caused by other’s behaviors too. Those facts around us happen repeatedly everyday and the importance is whether we noticed the mental harm exist or not, and how to appraisal it.
After confirming the notion of mental harm or injury exist, if try to analyze more detailed, defining the mental harm notion is the first step we should take and looking for under what kind of situations the notion of mental harm will become meaningful in legal system. Specifically, which means the results of mental harm must conform with some standards. If lacking of standards, the notion of mental harm will be vague, and the result of the vagueness, it might broaden the range excessively. So if the results lack of substantial emotional harm, or didn’t make victims’ reactions out of normal range, then we don’t admit the result is a mental harm, but a negative emotion.
Because mental harm has special quality, the question is which behavior leads to the results of mental harm, and the causation between behavior and result is not clear enough. The reason is that in the situation of mental harm, if the specific behaviors surly cause the result of mental harm can’t be discovered obviously and objectively. As the result, the existence of a result of mental harm is caused by behavior A or B, or is caused by A and B, except we have clear facts and proofs to be reference materials, or we only can apply the accumulation of human experience to the construction of causation and we can not use condition theory(Bedingunstheorie) as the standard to determine the causation. Thus, the theory of hypothesized causation constructs the causation through the human experience seems more practical and reasonable standard.
When the causation have been constructed, after that, the question is that if the defendant should be blamed for the result should be considered as well. If the behavior is allowed in the society, then even if the behavior may bring about the risk of mental harm of the others, but the risk shall be allowed or endured and is an allowable risk(das erlaubte Risiko). And the relationships between people are not always as any others, if the relationship is closer, the common consensus of society will raise the line of allowable risk and broaden the range of allowable risk. In conclusion, although the behavior leads to the result of mental harm, the behavior companies the risk of the result of mental harm is recognized and allowed by society, so even the risk occur in deed, society will not punish the behavior.
Key Word: assault, battery, harm, injury, emotional harm, mental harm, emotional injury, substantial emotional harm, normal range, causation, allowable risk
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0095651041 |
| Creators | 林記弘 |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds