论我国想象竞合的规则及其限制

发布时间：2018-04-04 13:32

本文选题：竞合　切入点：拟制　出处：《政法论坛》2016年01期

【摘要】：存在论意义上的事实行为与"刑法上有意义的行为"之间的不一致,使得受制于禁止重复评价和充分评价而"从一重处断"的想象竞合在拟制规则上涉及罪与刑两个方面。其中,罪的拟制是取舍罪名的规则,刑的拟制包含着刑罚裁量的规则。在我国,"从一重处断"规则是刑法的基本立场,"从一轻"处断与数罪并罚是刑法的重要立场,后者意味着我国刑法在想象竞合规则上有重大突破,因此,区分性立场才是我国刑法的准确立场。完全置身于域外刑法语境来解决我国想象竞合问题的论调与做法,会陷入"以偏概全"的困境。立足于我国想象竞合的区分性立场并最大化维持想象竞合的传统规则,才能妥当处理"重罪"与"轻罪"难以判定时的规则适用问题和刑罚拟制中加减刑罚事由如何准确适用问题。
[Abstract]:The inconsistency between the factual behavior in the sense of ontology and the "meaningful act in criminal law" makes the imaginative concurrence between the prohibition of repeated evaluation and full evaluation and the "breaking from a single point" involved in two aspects of crime and punishment in the fictitious rules.Among them, the fiction of crime is the rule of taking charge, and the fiction of punishment contains the rule of penalty discretion.In our country, the rule of "breaking from one heavy point" is the basic position of criminal law, and "from one light" is an important position of criminal law, the latter means that there is a great breakthrough in the rule of imaginative concurrence in Chinese criminal law.The stand of distinction is the exact position of criminal law of our country.The theory and practice of solving the problem of imagination concurrence in the context of foreign criminal law will fall into the dilemma of "partial generalization".Based on the distinguishing stand of imagination competing in our country and maximizing the traditional rules of maintaining imagination competition,Only when "felony" and "misdemeanor" are difficult to judge, can we properly deal with the problem of the application of the rules and how to apply the reasons of addition and subtraction in the fictitious penalty.
【作者单位】：东南大学法学院;
【基金】：江苏省高校哲学社会科学研究基金项目(2014SJD028) 江苏省法学会法学研究青年项目(SFH2014C13)的阶段性成果中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目“量化指标下反腐败刑事立法的风险评估” 教育部“刑法出罪机制问题研究”(15YJA820015)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D924.3

【共引文献】