教唆故意的基本构造及具体展开

发布时间：2018-05-03 05:27

本文选题：教唆故意 + 单一故意　；参考：《法学家》2017年02期

【摘要】：围绕教唆故意的成立是否需要教唆者对构成要件结果具有认识,存在单一故意说与双重故意说的争论,其中双重故意说更具合理性。按照双重故意说的推论,在结果犯的场合,未遂教唆不具有可罚性,因其欠缺教唆故意。在具体危险犯及实行未终了的抽象危险犯的场合,教唆者如果对具体危险的不出现或抽象危险犯中实行不可能终了具有确信,则不成立教唆故意。在目的犯教唆的场合,对于与法益有关的目的,教唆者需要认识到实行者具有该目的及本身具有该目的方成立教唆犯。对于与法益无关的目的,教唆者只需要对实行者具有特定目的有认识就可成立教唆故意。在有故意无目的的工具场合,不应当把实行者具有特定目的的认识作为教唆者教唆故意的内容。
[Abstract]:Whether the instigator should have an understanding of the result of the constitutive elements, there is a dispute between the single intention theory and the double intention theory, in which the double intention theory is more reasonable. According to the theory of double intention, in the case of consequential offense, attempted instigation is not punishable because of its lack of abetting intention. In the case of specific dangerous crime and the practice of indefinite abstract dangerous crime, the abettor is not guilty of abetting intent if he is convinced that the incrimination of the concrete danger does not appear or that the execution of the abstract dangerous crime is impossible. In the case of the purpose of abetting, the abettor should recognize that the perpetrator has the aim and has the purpose to establish the abettor for the purpose related to the legal interest. For purposes not related to legal interest, abettor can establish abettor intention only if he has a specific purpose. In the case of intentional aimlessness, it should not be regarded as the content of abettor's intention.
【作者单位】：云南大学法学院;
【基金】：云南大学中青年英才计划项目成果
【分类号】：D920.5;D924.3

【相似文献】