不作为犯罪中先行行为之探讨

发布时间：2018-04-09 13:46

本文选题：先行行为　切入点：作为义务理论　出处：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：不作为犯罪以负有作为义务为核心要素,分为纯正的不作为犯罪和不纯正的不作为犯罪,其中不纯正的不作为犯罪相较于纯正的不作为犯罪,在学术界中引发的争议更大,特别是作为不纯正不作为犯罪的义务来源之一的先行行为,从其诞生开始,学界就不断的进行争论与检讨。正是因为先行行为的法理基础、界限外延具有极大的争议性,所以在司法实践中的应用也具有极大的困惑。作为司法工作者,在司法实践中看到过由于对先行行为的理解不同,对是否构成不作为犯罪得出不同的结论,又或者对同一案件事实虽然构成不作为犯罪的结论相同,但论证路径大相径庭,正是司法实践中的应用混乱引发了笔者对先行行为进行学习研究的兴趣。本文先从三个案例入手,说明司法实践中因对先行行为的不同理解导致适用标准不统一的现象,并从案例中总结出在形式作为义务理论和实质作为义务理论下,先行行为具有不同的地位和作用,继而通过归纳总结已有之研究成果,说明形式作为义务理论向实质作为义务理论过渡之必要以及从作为与不作为需具有等价性为立足点,总结出先行行为实质法理基础是对法益侵害的因果流程具有支配作用,进而肯定先行行为的保证人地位。在肯定了先行行为保证人地位之后,试图进一步界定先行行为的判断标准,通过对现有标准的总结分析,根据先行行为的特殊性,认为依客观归责理论对先行行为进行界定具有一定的科学性,并得出在先行为必须创设或升高了风险,在先行为与损害结果之间具有风险关联且风险实现不是由受害人自我危险行为等其他客观因素所导致的界定标准。最后尝试将得出的界定标准用于司法实践。
[Abstract]:Not as a crime to bear the obligation as the core elements, divided into pure nonfeasance crime and impure crime of omission, which is not a pure crime compared to a pure crime, caused in the academic circle of the more controversial, especially as impure as one of the first acts of a source of obligations crime, from the beginning of its birth, scholars continue to debate and review. It is because the legal basis of the advance behavior, boundary extension is controversial, so the application in the judicial practice also has great confusion. As a judicial worker, in judicial practice, due to the different behavior seen in advance the understanding of whether not as a crime constitutes different conclusions, or on the same case although not constitute a crime as the same conclusion, but it is the path to be quite different in judicial practice. The application of chaos caused the author to study interest in the first behavior. This paper first starts with three cases, instructions in judicial practice because of the different understanding of the antecedent actions lead to the application of the standard is not unified phenomenon, and from the case summed up in the form of obligation theory and substantive obligation theory, the advance behavior has status and the effects of different, then summarize the existing research results, explain the form theory of the obligation to nature as a necessary transition, from the theory of the obligation of inaction and need is equivalent as the starting point, this paper first action jurisprudence is a dominant role on law against the causal process, and that the status of people certainly the advance behavior. After that the advance behavior status of guarantor, to further define the criteria of antecedent actions, based on the existing standard The summary and analysis, according to the special nature of the first act, that according to the definition of the objective imputation theory has certain science on the behavior of the first, and the first act creating or increased the risk and the risk associated with risk must not self risk behavior is caused by the victim and other objective factors defined between prior behavior and damage results. Finally the that the definition of standards for judicial practice.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】