摘要： 针对“违法性的判断对象能否包括主观要素”这一问题,目前存在三种不同的立场,即主观违法要素全面否定论、例外肯定论和全面肯定论。全面否定论和例外肯定论存在诸多不足之处,不能很好地完成违法性认定的任务。全面肯定论符合违法性的内涵和功能,其不仅可以避免将没有预见可能性的情形宣布为违法,而且有利于违法性的准确认定。违法在于确定行为人做了什么事,责任在于确定是否可以对行为人所做之事予以谴责。违法事实在责任阶段都具有对应的责难性,既无必要也不应该单独地将主观内在的违法事实作为责任要素。单纯责任故意、过失说和双重故意、过失说对故意、过失的体系性安排均不合理,在全面赞成主观违法要素的前提下,单纯不法故意、过失说应得到提倡。

关键词: 违法性, 主观违法要素, 假想防卫, 不法故意, 责任

Abstract: Excluding, exceptionally admitting and fully admitting subjective illegitimacy elements are the three theories on whether subjective illegitimacy elements shall be taken into account while identifying illegitimacy.The first two theories, due to their own deficiencies, cannot well complete the task of illegitimacy identification while the third one is in line with the connotation and function of illegitimacy determination.It can not only avoid declaring illegal situations without anticipated possibility but also be conducive to the accurate identification of illegitimacy.Illegitimacy identification lies in determining what the perpetrator has done, and responsibility determination lies in judging whether it is possible to condemn what the perpetrator has done.The illegal facts have corresponding responsibilities in the responsibility stage, so it is neither necessary nor proper to take the subjective internal illegal facts as the responsibility elements.The approaches of simple responsibility intention and negligence as well as dual intention and negligence are not appropriate for the systematic positioning of intention and negligence.With the theory of fully admitting subjective illegitimacy elements, the approach of simple intention of illegitimacy and negligence shall be promoted.

Key words: Illegitimacy, Subjective Illegitimacy Elements, Imaginary Defense, Intention of Illegitimacy, Responsibility