绑架罪既遂标准研究

发布时间：2018-03-04 14:03

本文选题：绑架罪　切入点：法益侵害说　出处：《安徽财经大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：刑法修正案九对于绑架罪的刑法条文进行了修改,笔者用普遍联系的方法论和严谨的法律逻辑,对绑架罪实行行为、既遂标准、“以勒索财物为目的”等内容进行论述,环环相扣、相互验证。每个犯罪的主观方面和客观方面对应的内涵和外延必然是一致的,既然超过了主观的范畴,那么,肯定必然超过了与之对应的客观的范畴,得出“以勒索财物为目的”的条文规定应该评价为“主观超过构成要件要素”更稳妥的结论。并且通过论证“以勒索财物为目的”肯定是违背主客观相一致原则的。如果强行把“勒索财物的目的”归于绑架罪中处罚,也就是“‘勒索财物目的’+非法拘禁罪=绑架罪”,那就是典型的主观归罪主义,得出刑法修正案有必要取消“以勒索财物为目的”规定的结论。“单一行为说”、“绑架行为完成说”是遵循刑法条文的必然选择,但是我们会发现其存在着一定的逻辑悖论。所谓既遂就是实行行为完全结束,所有构成要件要素都已经评价完毕了,之后的任何主观的客观的要件都不应该成为之前犯罪的构成要件要素,也就是说不能评价为之前的罪。但现实中绑架行为完成后又实施勒索财物行为(结果)的依然定绑架罪。所以这个逻辑悖论从另一个方面论证了取消第一款“勒索财物目的”规定的必要性和根本性。生命、健康的法益无法作为绑架罪保护的法益的根本理由是根据论述建议取消刑法第二百三十九条第二款的规定后得出的结论。财产的法益不能作为绑架罪保护的法益,是根据论述把“以勒索财物为目的”规定取消得出的结论。人身安全的法益不能作为绑架罪保护的法益理由是人身安全的法益在故意杀人罪、故意伤害罪中都有侵犯,即使上升为刑法保护的法益,也应该定危害人身安全罪比较合适,同时在故意伤害只造成轻微伤的时候,刑法并不处罚,而适用行政处罚法的情况下,把人身安全的法益(其并没有造成实际身体伤害)上升到刑法保护的高度,也是不妥的。综上所述,事实上,人身自由的法益,既是非法拘禁罪单独保护的法益,也是绑架罪保护的法益。刑法第二百三十九条第二款的规定其实是把杀害、故意伤害致人重伤、死亡的结果行为以法律拟制的方式认定为绑架罪一罪。该法律拟制带来故意杀人未遂、既遂处罚标准不一,故意杀人未遂中轻伤、重伤处罚标准不一两个逻辑矛盾,故意杀害、伤害行为无论既遂还是未遂都应该和绑架罪分开进行评价,数罪并罚才是符合刑法罪责刑相一致的理性要求,立法者没有必要画蛇添足规定第二款的内容,因此,笔者建议绑架罪刑法分则第二款的规定应该取消。
[Abstract]:The nine amendment to the criminal law for the crime of kidnapping the provisions of the criminal law was amended, the author used the method of widespread contact theory and strict legal logic, implementation behavior, the crime of kidnapping offense, "for the purpose of extortion", the paper discusses the content, interlocking, mutual authentication. Each crime connotation of the subjective and objective aspects corresponding and the extension must be consistent, since more than a subjective category, then, certainly must exceed the corresponding objective category, obtained the "extortion for specified purposes" provisions should be evaluated as "over subjective elements" more reliable conclusions. And through demonstration "for the purpose of extortion" certainly is a violation of subjective and objective consistent principles. If forced to "extortion" for the purposes of punishment to the crime of kidnapping, namely "extortion" + = tied to the crime of illegal detention Frame of crime ", that is a typical subjective blame doctrine, that the criminal law amendment is necessary to cancel" for the purpose of extortion "conclusion." single action "and" kidnapping complete "is the inevitable choice to follow the provisions of the criminal law, but we will find that there is a logical paradox. The so-called crime is the implementation of behavior is completely finished, all the elements have been finished after the evaluation, no subjective objective elements should not be before the crime elements, that is to say before can not evaluate for sin. But in reality the kidnapping and extortion behavior after the completion of the implementation of the (results) still kidnapped sin. So the logical paradox from another aspect demonstrates the necessity and fundamental to cancel the first" extortion purpose "provisions. Life, health benefits can not be used as kidnapping crime The fundamental reason for the protection of the legal interests is in accordance with the provisions of paragraph second of the criminal law discusses the proposal to abolish 239th conclusions. Legal property can not be used as the crime of kidnapping is the protection of the legal interests, according to the discussion "for the purpose of extortion" provisions of the abolition of the conclusion of the personal safety of the law can not be used as legal interest for the crime of kidnapping is to protect the personal safety of the interests in the crime of intentional homicide, the crime of intentional injury are violated, even up to the criminal law protection of legal interests, but also endanger the personal safety of the crime should be more appropriate, and the intentional injury caused only minor injuries when the criminal law is not punished, and the application of administrative penalty the case of the personal safety of the law (which did not cause actual bodily harm) rise to criminal protection level, is also wrong. To sum up, in fact, freedom of the person of interest, is the crime of illegal detention Alone to protect the legal interests, the crime of kidnapping is to protect the legal interests. The provisions of paragraph second of the criminal law 239th is murder, intentional injury causing serious injury, death as a result of behavior to the legal fiction style identified as the crime of kidnapping crime. The legal fiction has attempted murder, not a crime penalty standard and attempted murder in minor injuries, injured one or two punishment standards are not logical contradiction, intentional killing, hurting both accomplished or attempted crime of kidnapping and should be evaluated separately, is consistent with the requirements of physical punishment consistent with the criminal legislation, the provisions of the second paragraph should not superfluous content, therefore, the author suggests that the provisions of the kidnapping crime criminal law second paragraph should be canceled.

【学位授予单位】：安徽财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】