刑事和解程序中“赔偿损失”问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-12 08:39

【摘要】：刑事和解程序由司法实践发展而来并最终被立法程序所认可,是一种自下而上的立法发展。在刑事和解未被立法确认为刑事诉讼法特别程序之前,各地方公安司法部门对刑事和解主体、客体、内容、方式、程序等理解不同,司法实践缺乏统一标准。2012年刑事诉讼法修正案及相关解释与规则对于上述问题做出了一些明确规定。但是针对刑事和解赔偿问题并没有做出过多具体、明确的规定,致使法院对于和解双方在和解协议达成并履行后又因为赔偿问题而提起附带民事诉讼或者要求撤销和解协议的案件做出不同的判决与说理,有时对于同一个原因的相同诉讼请求,由于请求方的加害、被害地位不同,便产生不同判决。1要解决这一问题,必须明确“赔偿损失”在刑事和解中的作用、性质与标准问题。本文以“刑事和解程序中‘赔偿损失’问题研究”为题,以案例引出“赔偿损失”是赔偿还是另行补偿这一问题,运用历史归纳、文献研究方法,逐渐论证“赔偿损失”在刑事和解中的作用、性质与标准问题,最终解答这一问题。笔者认为刑事和解不仅涉及程序问题,也涉及实体问题,对赔偿问题的理解差异主要是由对程序和实体问题的理解差异引起的。刑事和解中加害人“赔偿损失”获得从宽处理的依据是罪刑相适应原则,因为缺乏刑事实体处分权以及程序处分权,被害人在刑事和解制度中并不存在能够影响诉讼程序与量刑的诉讼性权利。被害人在刑事和解中所谓的和解启动权也不是其能独立行使且主导的权利。“赔偿损失”在刑事和解中的性质是“修复的责任”,以影响预防刑的量刑情节以及报应观念解释“赔偿损失”的功能不足以说明刑事和解制度的地位。和解双方就“修复的责任”达成的合法、自愿的合意应当被尊重,若和解双方明确约定了“赔偿损失”为法定可获得赔偿内容之外的赔偿,则该赔偿可算作是法外赔偿,反之,则应算作法定赔偿,对于已经履行完毕的约定与法定重合部分的赔偿,被害人不能再次要求附带民事赔偿。
[Abstract]:Criminal reconciliation procedure is a bottom-up legislative development developed from judicial practice and finally recognized by legislative procedure. Before criminal reconciliation is recognized as a special procedure of criminal procedure law by legislation, local public security and judicial departments have different understandings of the subject, object, content, method and procedure of criminal reconciliation, and judicial practice lacks unification. One standard. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012 and the relevant interpretations and rules have made some clear provisions on the above issues. However, there are not too many specific and clear provisions on the issue of compensation for criminal reconciliation, resulting in the court to file incidental civil action against the two parties to the reconciliation after the settlement agreement has been reached and fulfilled. In order to solve this problem, we must make clear the role, nature and standard of compensation loss in criminal reconciliation. With the topic of "the study of compensation for loss" in criminal reconciliation procedure, this paper leads to the question of whether compensation for loss is compensation or compensated separately by cases. By using historical induction and literature research methods, this paper gradually demonstrates the function, nature and standard of compensation for loss in criminal reconciliation, and finally answers this question. Criminal reconciliation involves not only procedural issues, but also substantive issues. Differences in understanding of compensation issues are mainly caused by differences in understanding of procedural and substantive issues. In the criminal reconciliation system, the victim does not have the procedural right which can affect the procedure and sentencing. The so-called right of reconciliation initiation in the criminal reconciliation is not the right which can be exercised independently and dominated by the victim. The concept of retribution explains that the function of "compensation for loss" is not enough to explain the status of the criminal reconciliation system. Compensation, on the contrary, should be counted as statutory compensation, the victim can not claim collateral civil compensation for the compensation of the overlapping part of the agreement and statutory which has been fulfilled.
【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】