不作为共犯研究

发布时间：2018-03-16 15:15

  本文选题：不作为　切入点：共犯　出处：《吉林大学》2004年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：纵观各国刑法发展史，关于不作为共犯的研究，较早出现于德国。早 在19世纪末，德国的判例就肯定了不作为形式的帮助犯。二战以后， 德 国的理论界更是雨后春笋般出现了诸多关于不作为共犯的理论和学说。而 f=1本学界以实际判例的出现为契机，分析和探讨了关于不作为共犯的理论 构成，使该问题已然成为目前日本学界的热点问题。 在我国理论界关于不作为共犯的研究不仅相当薄弱，甚至可以说是尚 未涉足。这不仅是因为实际的审判实践没有足够的重视，理论界也没有对 此问题给予足够的关注。理论的触角尚未触及此领域，还因为我们理论界 一直以来只是对犯罪论的不同具体领域给予关注和加以研究的同时，却忽 略了犯罪论不同领域之间的竞合所带来的一系列理论上和实践上的问题。 可以说，不作为共犯就是不作为这一行为论与共犯论相交叉所产生的问 题。 首先，应该肯定不作为共犯理论是极为复杂的。在这里，即使笔者把 论文题目概括为“不作为共犯”，但由于其涉及范围广和内容复杂多样， 因此，为研究的需要有必要进一步明确，并限制其理论形态。本文所探讨 的“不作为共犯”仅仅对“不作为形式的共犯”进行探讨，而不涉及“不 作为犯的共犯”问题。最后，以“不作为形式的共犯”为内容的不作为共 犯的体系性归属问题，即属于共犯理论范畴还是属于不作为犯理论范畴的 问题。本文把不作为共犯问题纳入共犯论领域的同时，由于“不作为”行 为方式的特性所决定，既然不能直接导入以“作为”为前提的共犯理论， 来探讨“不作为共犯”问题，所以，本文试图通过研究来揭示以“不作为” 为基本形式的共犯理论的特点。 不作为正犯与共犯的界限基准可以说足最难统一的问题，也是研究不 WP=185 作为共犯问题的基础。德日关于区分不作为正犯与共犯有诸多理论。第一， 以共犯论为基础，其区别与作为相同，又分为下列三种学说：主观说，其 中又有故意说与目的说或利益说之别。故意说认为，具有为自己行为之意 思而为行为者为正犯，以加担于他人行为之意思而为行为者则为共犯。目 的说或利益说认为，以自己之目的或利益而为行为者为正犯，以他人之目 的或利益而为行为者则为共犯：行为支配说，认为不作为犯，亦适用行为 支配之观念，其称行为支配，是指基于故意把握相当于构成要件之事象的 经过，行为人所认识目的的构成要件形成之操纵可能性，事实上处于得依 自己之意思，阻止或中断构成要件实现之状态，并认识之者。有此行为支 配者为正犯，无此行为支配者则为共犯；保障人说，认为保障人系在作为 者尚在支配行为经过时，不阻止作为者之行为者为共犯，如在作为者尚未 支配行为经过时不避免结果发生的则为正犯。 上述三种学说中，主观说完全以行为人的主观意思为标准，根本不可 能将正犯与共犯区别清楚。因为犯罪是行为人行为的客观要件与主观要件 的统一，只根据一方面的要件，不仅不能将二者区别开来，有时甚至会得 出错误的结论。故为绝大多数学者所不采。行为支配说以目的行为论作为 区分的理论基础，这种行为学说本身就不科学，故未被多数学者接受。第 三种学说以保证人说所开展的“同价值性”之观念为基础，以有行为支配 之作为者的存在为前提，专就其与作为者的关系，评价不作为者的不作为， 不失为一种研究方法。但该说过于抽象，缺乏可操作性，，且在对纯正不作 为犯实行帮助的场合，该说则无法适用。 第二，以不作为论为基础，认为原则上纯正不作为犯与不纯正不作为 犯均无不作为共犯的情况存在。凡有作为义务者的不作为均为正犯。不可 否认，不作为的帮助多发生在对作为犯进行帮助的场合，但在实践中，确 有对不作为的正犯而以不作为进行帮助的情况。 笔者认为，认定其不作为是正犯还是共犯，在行为人具有作为义务的 前提下，应坚持主观要件和客观要件相统一的原则：以实行犯的意思，直 接以不作为实行犯罪构成客观要件行为的是正犯：以帮助他人犯罪的意 思，以不作为实施犯罪构成客观要件以外的行为的是共犯。 WP=186 区别基准明确之后，利用主客观相统一的标准，就可以对不作为共犯 的具体形态进行分析论证，判断其是不作为的正犯还是共犯。这也是总论 篇的主要内容。 在理论界关于不作为的共同正犯问题并没有达成共识，形成统一的学 说，至今仍存在着否定说与肯定说之争。(一)全面否定说，主要从不作 为的基本构造出发，否定不作为形式的共犯形态的成立。因此，主张也不 可能存在不作为的共同正犯。 (二)全面肯定说， 持全面肯定说的，一般 把不作为的共同正犯分为作为与不作为的共同正犯和不作为与不作为的 共同正犯进行论述。 (三)限定肯定说 ，该说实际上是在批判全面肯定说 的基础上，从共同正犯的本质出发，重新解释不作为共同正犯形态，并认 为应该限定不作为共同正犯的存在范围。怀疑不作为共同正犯理论可能性 的观点，从有目的行为论出发把不作为因果关系欠缺目的性作为理由，否 定出于实现意图的不作为犯的故意性。认为共同行为的决定和分工都是不 可能的。 笔者认为，机械地看待
[Abstract]:In the history of criminal law, the research about the accomplice of omission, first appeared in the early German.
At the end of nineteenth Century, the German case certainly not as a form of help prisoners. After World War II, Germany
The theory is more like bamboo shoots after a spring rain appeared many about not as an accomplice theory and doctrine.
F=1 the actual case to the academia as an opportunity, analysis and discussion about the omission of the theory of accomplice
A, the problem has become a hot issue of the current Japanese scholars.
In the theory circle of our country on the not as an accomplice study not only very weak, and even can be said to be still
Not involved. This is not only because of the actual judicial practice not enough attention, nor on the theory
This problem gives enough attention. The theory has not yet reached the antenna field, but also because of our theoretical circles
Since only on different specific areas of the crime theory give attention and study at the same time, he suddenly
The theory of crime issues a series of theory of concurrence between different areas brought and practice.
It can be said, not as an accomplice is not as the behavior theory and the theory of accomplice generated by cross.
Questions.
First of all, should certainly not as an accomplice theory is extremely complex. Here, even the
The topic summarized as "not as an accomplice, but because it involves a wide range and complicated,
Therefore, the need for research on the need to further clarify, and limit the theory discussed in this paper form.
"Not as" accomplice "only as a form of joint crime are discussed, and do not involve"
As the accomplice problem. Finally, "not as a form of accomplice" as the content is not as common
The problem of ownership system crime, which belong to the theory of accomplice is belong to omission theory category
In this paper the problem. Not as an accomplice accomplice theory into the field at the same time, because "not as"
Is determined by the characteristics of the ways, since not directly into the "as the premise of the theory of accomplice,
To explore the "complicity" problem, therefore, this paper attempts to study to reveal "not as"
For the characteristics of the basic form of accomplice theory.
Not as principaloffender boundaries can be said is the most difficult benchmark problems, and research
WP=185
As the basis of complicity. Germany and Japan on the distinction between perpetrator and accomplice not as there are many theories first,
As an accomplice theory, the difference and the same as, and is divided into the following three theories: the subjective theory, the
There are also deliberately said to say or not. The interests that deliberately said that is for their own behavior.
Think as the principal for the actors to bear the meaning for others and actors are as an accomplice.
The said interest said that its own purpose or interest for the actors as the principal, to others.
Of or interest for the actors to control said that: the accomplice of omission, also applies to the behavior of
The concept of the dominant behavior, called domination, is an intentional grasp equivalent to the components of the image based on the
After, people realize the purpose of behavior elements form the manipulation of possibility, in fact in accordance with
You mean, stop or interrupt a state of realization and understanding of the elements, has supported this behavior.
With people as the principal, the dominant behavior for security accomplice; say that as people in the Department of security
Who is in the dominant behavior after, don't stop as the actors as an accomplice, as in as yet
鏀�閰嶈�屼负缁忚繃鏃朵笉閬垮厤缁撴灉鍙戠敓鐨勫垯涓烘�ｇ�

本文编号：1620474