刑法中因果关系错误问题研究

发布时间：2018-01-23 17:56

本文关键词： 因果关系错误人权保障法益保护　出处：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：因果关系错误是我国刑法领域非常重要的问题，因为因果关系错误通常与罪与非罪、此罪彼罪、未遂既遂问题交织在一起，所以对行为人的实行行为进行归责意义重大，对刑法学界与司法实践都有重要的价值，由于我国的刑法典中也没有相关内容的规定，同时因果关系错误问题也存在着很多争议的问题，在司法实践领域产生很多分歧，容易滋生法律风险，削弱法律权威，使行为人与被害人的合法权利都得不到切实的保障。学界通说观点认为法定符合说是解决因果关系错误的最好办法，本文以人权保障与法益保护为视角，通过运用比较研究方法和案例分析方法，对具体符合说与法定符合说进行了细致的分析，发现具体符合说与法定符合说在解决因果关系错误问题上存在着理论缺陷。具体符合说在构成要件内具体的相一致才能成立故意犯罪既遂，由于条件的苛刻在很大程度上阻止了故意犯罪既遂的成立，正是由于这样的问题的存在，现在理论界已经很少有人在主张具体符合说了。法定符合说在法益保护上有效的保护了被害人的权益，并且在法定的构成要件内一致就成立故意犯罪既遂，成立故意犯罪既遂的门槛较低，，并且没有细分行为在实施危害行为时的故意，没有做到具体问题具体分析，极有可能成为人们滥用刑法的合理借口，极容易损害行为人的利益，不利于人权保障这一刑法机能的发挥。本文通过在整体与部分的视角对因果关系错误问题进行了比较分析，通过对我国当前的理论观点与德日刑法理论界的通说观点进行评析，进一步了解因果关系错误问题及其下位概念中事前故意与结果提前实现的相关理论，加深了对因果关系错误问题及因果关系错误类型案例的主客观构成的认识。本文在对事前故意与结果提前实现类型案例中的行为人的实行行为与其包含在行为背后的故意进行细分，发现在不同内容的故意支配下行为人实施危害行为如果用统一的标准归责，在行为人与被害人利益平衡时会有所偏失，人权保障与法益保护两大刑法机能也达不到理想的平衡状态。而任何一种科学合理的学说与方法都应该在人权保障与法益保护两大机能之间寻求最佳平衡状态。本文正是以人权保障与法益保护刑法的两大机能为视角，通过对当前我国与德日刑法学界的理论学说进行评析，发现每种学说的合理与不足之处，探索在解决因果关系错误问题类型的最优途径。本文通过对行为人的实行行为与背后故意情况的细分，发现在这类案例中根据行为人所持故意的不同，我们应当具体分析第一行为与第二行为在不同种类故意支配下所产生出的不同情况做分类讨论，对行为人的故意进行更加深入的探索，当然这需要司法实践活动中提供充足的证据作为支撑。之所以这样做并不是简单为行为人出罪提供理论借口，而是通过对故意的细分使行为人的恶故意更加鲜明的摆在我们面前，使犯罪意图决绝的行为人的犯罪故意无处遁形，而犯罪故意恶性不大的行为人理应减轻处罚。这样使法律的公平性、可接受性、权威性得到切实的贯彻，也使人权保障机能与法益保护机能之间得到最佳平衡。在苛责行为人的同时，也使行为人的权利得到应有的保障。
[Abstract]:The causation error is a very important problem in China's criminal law field, because causality errors are commonly associated with crime and non crime, this crime and that crime, attempted crime problems are intertwined, so for the implementation of the perpetrator's behavior imputation is significant, and has important value of community and judicial practice of criminal law, the provisions no related content in our criminal law, and causality errors also exist many controversial issues, have a lot of differences in the field of judicial practice, easy to breed the legal risk, the authority of law, legal rights and harmful behavior that are not effectively protected.
The academic viewpoint is that that is to say, is the best way to deal with false causality, the protection of human rights and the protection of law from the perspective of method and case analysis method by using comparative study, to meet the specific that the detailed analysis and legal compliance, and statutory compliance with said that in resolving the cause the relationship between error problems. Theoretical defect of concrete accord in cabstand consistent to the establishment of specific accomplishment of intentional crime, because of the harsh conditions to a great extent prevent intentional crime accomplishment, it is precisely because of such problems, now the theory has rarely been in favor of concrete accord said. That is to say, in the protection of the interests of the law on the effective protection of the rights and interests of the victims, and the legal elements in the agreement on the establishment of crime of intentional crime, intentional crime The accomplishment of the low threshold, and no intentional behavior in the implementation of subdivision harmful action, no specific problem analysis, is likely to be a reasonable excuse for people to abuse of criminal law, is very easy to damage the interests of the people, is not conducive to the protection of human rights in the criminal law function of play.
This paper through the comparative analysis in whole and in part from the perspective of false causality problem, based on the theory of current China and the German and Japanese criminal law theory view analysis, further understanding of the relevant theory of causality error and its subordinate concept in advance intention and results ahead of schedule to achieve, to deepen the understanding of causality the relationship between error and the causal relationship between the subjective and objective error type case. Based on the composition and the type of intentional advance ahead of schedule to achieve in the case of the implementation of the perpetrator's behavior and behavior behind the intention contained in the subdivision, found in different contents under the control of the perpetrator intentionally harm behavior if the standard of liability that will be due to the deviation in behavior and victim of balance of interests, the protection of human rights and interests protection two functions of criminal law can not reach the ideal balance. And any scientific and reasonable theory and method should seek the best balance between the two functions of the protection of human rights and the protection of legal interests.
This paper is based on the two functions of human rights protection and legal protection of criminal law from the perspective of the analysis through the theory of current China and the German and Japanese criminal law scholars, found that each theory is reasonable and inadequate exploration in solving the optimal path type false causality problem. Based on the behavior of the implementation of behind the intentional behavior and segmentation, found in this case according to the behavior of people deliberately holding different, we should first analyzes different behavior and behavior of second produced in different kinds of intentional under the domination of classified discussion, on the behavior of the intention to explore more in-depth, of course, the need to provide as the support of sufficient evidence in judicial practice. The reason for doing so is not simply to acts of crime and provide a theoretical excuse, but through the deliberate evil people deliberately make behavior segmentation more Bright in front of us, the criminal intent of the perpetrator of the crime of intentionally refuse nowhere to hide, and intentional crime behavior should not malignant. So the mitigated punishment of the legal fairness, acceptability, authority has been effectively implemented, the protection of human rights can obtain the best balance between protection and function of legal interest. In the critical behavior of people at the same time, the behavior of human rights.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】