杜某冷冻协议欺诈与诈骗认定

发布时间：2018-05-31 16:51

本文选题：冷冻协议 + 民事欺诈　；参考：《延边大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：美国阿尔科生命延续基金会把冷冻人技术推向市场进行经营,并且也得到了少数人的认可,其中包括我国冷冻第一人——杜某。针对这一新兴技术,人类支持它的发展,不反对实验室的科学研究自由,但是对于将它推向市场进行经营的行为,类比美国尼尔森冷冻遗体案,国内目前普遍认为杜某冷冻协议存在欺骗性。如果对其听之任之,不仅无法保护被冷冻者的合法权益,也无法保护意思自治的社会契约精神。有关冷冻协议的法律问题,美国的司法判例可追溯至上个世纪七十年代,我国针对它的理论研究和法律制度目前皆处于空白,亟需法律规范对其进行约束。美国阿尔科生命延续基金会与杜某达成的冷冻协议在司法认定中会产生民事欺诈与刑事诈骗罪的论辩,二者的混淆也会与当代先进的司法理念背道而驰,本文就此展开探讨,以期为将来的司法实践提供参考。由于杜某冷冻协议还未介入司法实践活动,将之认定为刑事犯罪存在司法举证的困难,本文认为将其认定为民事合同欺诈比较适宜。文章共分为四个部分:第一部分首先以中国首例冷冻人事例和美国尼尔森冷冻遗体案切入,阐述了对高昂费用下杜某选择美国阿尔科生命延续基金会对其进行遗体冷冻的争议,从中剥离出相关争议焦点,接着就焦点问题展开论述;第二部分论述首要就美国阿尔科生命延续基金会针对我国会员杜某提供冷冻遗体服务行为的欺骗性质从对杜某复活可能性的分析和对冷冻协议属于法律意义上的欺骗的认定两个方面加以阐释;在确认了当前Alcor对我国会员杜某的冷冻遗体的行为属于欺骗性质的基础之上,第三部分就双方达成的冷冻协议从容易给司法实践造成混淆的民事上的合同欺诈行为与刑事上的合同诈骗罪进行认定;第四部分理论上从两个视角分别得出合同欺诈与合同诈骗罪的观点,文章最后立足司法实践中对二者的区分得出Alcor与杜某达成的冷冻协议属于民事上的合同欺诈行为的结论。
[Abstract]:The Arko life foundation of the United States has brought frozen man technology to market and has been recognized by a small number of people, including the first frozen man in China, duo. For this new technology, human support is supported by its development, and it is not opposed to the freedom of scientific research in the laboratory, but it is operated on the market. Behavior, analogous to the case of Nelson's frozen remains in the United States, it is generally believed that Du's freezing agreement is fraudulent. If it is to be allowed, it is not only unable to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the frozen people, but also can not protect the social contract spirit of autonomy. The judicial precedents in the United States can be traced back to the supreme world. In 70s, the theoretical research and legal system of our country were in blank, and the legal norms were urgently needed to restrain them. The frozen agreement reached by Arko's life continuity foundation in the United States would produce the argument on the crime of civil fraud and criminal fraud in the judicial confirmation. The confusion of the two parties would also be with the modern advanced judicature. The idea is in the opposite direction. This article discusses it in order to provide reference for the judicial practice in the future. Because Du Mou's freezing agreement has not intervened in the judicial practice and identified it as the difficulty of judicial proof in criminal crime, this article holds that it is more suitable for the civil contract fraud ratio. The article is divided into four parts: the first part of the first part In the first case of the first example of China's freezer case and the case of Nelson's frozen remains in the United States, the controversy about the choice of the Arko life continuation foundation of the United States on the freezing of the remains under the high cost was expounded, and the focus of the controversy was stripped from it, and then the focus was discussed. The second part discussed the life of Arko in the United States. The deception nature of the continuation Foundation provides frozen remains for our member Du Mou from two aspects of the analysis of the possibility of the resurrection of Du Mou and the identification of the deception in the legal sense of the freezing agreement; and it is confirmed that the behavior of the cold and frozen remains of Alcor, the member of our country, is the basis of the deceit. In the third part, the freezing agreement reached between the two sides is identified from the civil contract fraud and the crime of criminal contract fraud, which is easy to confuse the judicial practice. The fourth part theoretically draws the views of the contract fraud and the contract fraud from two perspectives. Finally, the article is based on the area of the two in the judicial practice. It is concluded that the freezing agreement reached between Alcor and Dumou belongs to the conclusion of civil contract frauds.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D920.5;D924.3

【相似文献】