| Regarding the issue of error of constitutive elements, the analyses from both the perspective of statutory confirmation and the perspective of idiographic confirmation are based on the theory of effect. However, the comparison of impact cannot provide an essential basis for the imputed result. The theory of reason, which focuses on investigating the reason of danger, may reveal the essence of error and provide an adequate foundation for the imputed result. For instance, as far as striking error is concerned, an action of the doer would result in both the danger of intentional action and the danger of negligent action at the same time. The former has its aim, dominative motivation, and direction, whereas the latter is arbitrary and aimless. If they are regarded as the same, analysis cannot be convincing. If the result of error is not the accomplishment of the danger of intentional action but a result of the danger of the negligent act, in other words, if danger has fundamentally deviated from intention, the result would not be imputed. Regarding imputed result, Roxin's theory of accomplishing plan, Frisch's theory of risk, and Puppe's theory of intentional danger have all failed to convincingly deal with this issue. However, the approach that differentiates deviated danger of intentional action from accomplishing danger of intentional action is reasonable. Consequently, if the danger of intentional action does not deviate from a striking object but makes a striking error, the causes of the error in a complicated situation should be analyzed in light of the concrete situation. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号