說明義務與詐欺罪之交錯：論不作為詐欺──以告知義務為中心【學習式判解評析】 試閱
The Intersection of Duty of Disclosure and Fraud: A Discussion of Fraud by Omission, Particularly-Focused on Informed Consent
刑法第339條規定之詐欺罪，亦包含不作為詐欺類型在內，而不作為詐欺的成立，須詐欺罪及不純正不作為犯均構成要件該當始成立，然而為避免過度擴張詐欺罪之適用，不作為詐欺需以行為人具保證人地位為構成要件，僅有負告知義務者，才須對其不作為以詐欺罪相繩。而醫師在進行醫療行為前，是否有義務對病人說明病情、可能診斷方式的選擇及其風險等事項之告知義務？醫師若未盡其告知義務，是否會構成不作為詐欺？均涉及告知義務和不作為詐欺罪之適用。本文以下就不作為詐欺以及告知義務等議題進行評析。
The establishment of fraud by omission shall both constitute the elements of fraud and non-genuine omission. The status of duty to act is used to limit the initiation of the national penal power and the scope of fraud by omission, only those who have the obligation to inform the truth, they must be responsible for their omission. If the doctor has an obligation to inform the patient of his illness condition, possible treatment methods and risks? If the doctor breaches the duty of Information, would it lead to criminal fraud by omission? These questions all refer to the specific understanding of “informed consent” and “fraud by omission”. This article comments on this case with “informed consent” and “fraud by omission.”
069-089
