片面对向犯研究

发布时间：2018-01-15 13:20

本文关键词：片面对向犯研究　出处：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在司法实践中，片面对向犯不罚一方的适用存在诸多疑难问题，如在贩卖淫秽物品牟利罪中，刑法只规定贩卖行为构成犯罪，并不处罚购买行为，如购买方积极劝说、怂恿原本并无出卖淫秽物品意图的贩卖方将淫秽物品卖于自己，购买方的行为能否作为贩卖淫秽物品牟利罪的教唆犯进行处罚；再如，在伪造、变造居民身份证罪中，购买方主动向制假者提供照片、个人信息并预付现金，要求制假者为其制办假身份证，对购买者方能否以伪造、变造居民身份证罪的帮助犯进行处罚，实践中也存在着广泛的争议。本文尝试从片面对向犯的角度对上述问题进行研究，以期对司法实践有所裨益。本文共分为三部分：第一章讨论了片面对向犯的基本概念。由于我国刑法中共犯的范围与德日刑法中共犯的范围并不一致，首先探讨了片面对向犯的理论基础，本文主张在最广义共犯理论基础上探讨片面对向犯。其次对对向犯的概念和分类作了简要介绍，主张对向犯概念应该是广义的，包括彼此俱罪的对向犯和只有一方构成犯罪的片面对向犯；并对“对向行为”的含义进行界定，在此基础上提出片面对向犯的概念是刑法只预先设定对向行为一方构成犯罪，而对另一方则没有规定构成犯罪的情形。刑法规定为犯罪的那一方称为只罚一方，，没有规定为犯罪的另一方称为不罚一方。最后，讨论了研究片面对向犯的必要性和意义。第二章讨论了片面对向犯的处罚范围和依据，本章是本文的研究重点，片面对向犯的核心问题在于不罚一方能否依据总则共犯的规定作为只罚一方的教唆犯或帮助犯进行处罚。文章首先介绍了该问题争议的由来，介绍了对必要共犯能否适用总则共犯规定的不同理解。其次，介绍并评述了是否可罚的学说观点。最后提出本文对该问题的见解，认为不罚一方的帮助、教唆行为不可罚，并在此基础上进一步论述不罚一方的范围和依据。第三章围绕运用理论解决司法实践中存在的问题展开。首先，明确了司法实践中频发的购买方提供个人信息及资金等请制办假证者为其制作假身份证，不能作为伪造、变造居民身份证罪的共犯进行处理；其次，对《关于办理生产、销售伪劣商品刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》展开评析，《解释》规定的购买不符合标准的医用器材行为等同于销售行为，本文认为这一规定是合理的；最后对《关于审理挪用公款案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》进行评析，认为挪用公款罪和使用行为并不构成片面对向犯。
[Abstract]:In the judicial practice, there are many difficult problems in the application of one party to commit impunity. For example, in the crime of selling obscene articles for profit, the criminal law only stipulates that trafficking constitutes a crime, and does not penalize the purchase. If the buyer actively persuades the seller who has no intention of selling obscene goods to sell the obscene material to himself whether the buyer's behavior can be punished as the abettor of the crime of selling obscene material for profit; For example, in the crime of forgery and alteration of resident identity card, the buyer voluntarily provides photo, personal information and prepaid cash to the counterfeiter, and requires the counterfeiter to make the fake identity card for him, and whether the buyer can forge it. In order to benefit the judicial practice, the author tries to study the above problems from the angle of face to face crime. This paper is divided into three parts: The first chapter discusses the basic concept of face to face offense. Because the scope of accomplice in our criminal law is not consistent with the scope of complicity in German and Japanese criminal law, it first discusses the theoretical basis of face oriented crime. Based on the theory of accomplice in the broadest sense, this paper discusses the concept and classification of the orientation offense, and argues that the concept of the directed offense should be generalized. Including the opposite of each other's crime and only one side constitute a crime in the face of the crime; On the basis of defining the meaning of "directed behavior", the author puts forward the concept that the criminal law only presupposes a crime against a party to the directed act. On the other hand, there is no provision for the circumstances that constitute an offence. The party who is criminalized by the criminal law is called the only party who is punished, and the other party who has not been named as the party who committed the crime is called the party without punishment. Finally. This paper discusses the necessity and significance of the research on facing the crime. The second chapter discusses the punishment scope and basis of face to face crime, this chapter is the focus of this paper. The core problem of facing the crime is whether one party can be punished as an abettor or an aider according to the provisions of the general principle of accomplice. Firstly, the article introduces the origin of the dispute. This paper introduces the different understandings of whether the necessary accomplice can be applied to the general principle of accomplice. Secondly, it introduces and comments on the theory of whether the accomplice can be punished. Finally, it puts forward the opinion of this article on this issue and thinks that the help of the non-penalized party. On the basis of which, the scope and basis of impunity are further discussed. The third chapter focuses on the use of theory to solve the problems in judicial practice. First of all, it is clear that the frequent buyers in judicial practice provide personal information and funds to make false identity cards for them. They cannot be treated as accomplices in the crime of forgery and alteration of resident identity cards; Secondly, on the criminal case of handling the production, sale of fake and inferior commodities specific application of a number of legal interpretation of the evaluation, "interpretation" of the purchase of medical equipment that does not meet the standard behavior is equivalent to sales behavior. This article holds that this provision is reasonable; Finally, the author makes an analysis of some problems in the application of law in the trial of cases of misappropriation of public funds, and concludes that the crime of misappropriating public funds and the behavior of using public funds do not constitute a face to face crime.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】