Abstract: The traditional view that regards the abstract potential damage offense as a unitary collective concept is flawed.It is necessary to clarify the conceptual boundaries between the traditional abstract potential damage offense and three related categories: the quasi-abstract potential damage offense, the cumulative offense, and the substantial preparatory offense.The quasi-abstract potential damage offense shall be strictly confined to crimes with explicitly prescribed danger elements in statutory provisions, and its scope shall not be unduly expanded; the concept of the cumulative offense carries no doctrinal interpretative value; and the substantial preparatory offense has no justification to be established as an independent offense category.Among prevailing academic perspectives, treating abstract danger as an unwritten constitutive element would blur the demarcation between the abstract potential damage offense and the concrete potential damage offence.Applying a restrictive interpretation to danger elements clearly violates the provisions of judicial interpretations, while adopting the standard of breach of duty of care constitutes an improper transplantation of the doctrines of negligent offenses.The abstract potential damage offense shall be divided into two sub-types: those protecting concrete legal interests and those protecting abstract legal interests.For the former sub-type, the ex ante danger judgment method can be adopted to negate the legal interest-infringing danger of the conduct at the empirical level; for the latter sub-type, the interpretative function of institution-reliance-based legal interests shall be fully exerted.If the above approaches still fail to exclude criminal liability, the proviso provision of the Criminal Law can only be applied as an unwritten quantitative element of crime to exculpate the actor based on a holistic evaluation.

Key words: Abstract Potential Damage Offense, Concrete Potential Damage Offence, Rebuttal, Personal Legal Interests, Collective Legal Interests

摘要： 传统理论将抽象危险犯视为一个集合性概念的观点存在疑问,对此需要厘清传统抽象危险犯与准抽象危险犯、累积犯、实质预备犯之间的关系。准抽象危险犯仅限于法条明文规定危险要素的犯罪,不宜过度扩张;累积犯概念不具备解释论层面的意义;实质预备犯则没有作为单独类型提出的必要。从学界现有观点来看,将抽象危险视为不成文构成要件要素会混淆与具体危险犯的关系;对危险要素进行限制解释则明显违反司法解释的规定;而采取注意义务违反标准则是对过失犯原理的不当嫁接。抽象危险犯应区分为保护具体法益型与保护抽象法益型,对于前者,可以采用事前危险的判断方法,在经验层面否定行为的法益侵害危险性,而对于后者,则需要充分发挥制度信赖型法益的解释机能。倘若采取上述路径仍无法出罪,只能将但书规定作为不成文的罪量要素,基于整体性的评价进行出罪。

关键词: 抽象危险犯, 具体危险犯, 反证, 个人法益, 集体法益