認識刑法責任能力條款──論鐵路殺警案與小燈泡案的異同【本期企劃】 試閱
One Mental Disorder Clause, Two Different Conclusions between Judgements: Focus on Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law
王景玉與鄭再由均為思覺失調症病患，並於罹病期間從事殺人行為，然前者經臺灣高等法院107年度上重更一字第6號刑事判決判處無期徒刑；後者卻獲判無罪，兩案事實相仿結果卻相去甚遠，引發社會譁然。故本文擬從刑法罪責理論切入比較兩則判決，說明刑法第19條之精神障礙條款為事實問題，而判決結果差異源於事實認定的不同，此乃案件結果出現歧異之原因。
Both Jing-Yu Wang and Zai-You Zheng committed murder during the onset of Schizophrenia. The Appellate Court found Wang guilty and sentenced Wang life imprisonment. However, the Chia-Yi District Court found Zheng Innocent due to his mental illness which caused him lacking the ability to recognize the legality of his behavior. This article thus aims at discussing the differences between the judgements by illustrating the article 19 of Taiwan Criminal Code and the concept of criminal responsibility. Especially the finding on the issue of mental illness is a factual question, which should be determined on the case-by- case basis, which means the different outcome should be deemed as the principle rather than an exception.
014-022
