滥用职权罪的疑难问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-19 22:41

本文选题：主体资格 + 不作为　；参考：《辽宁大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文研究的是关于滥用职权罪的一些疑难问题。当下正是社会主义市场经济转型的关键时期，渎职罪尤其是滥用职权罪在法律规定和实践司法活动中越来越凸显出其重要性。自1997年滥用职权罪单独成罪以来，司法解释就在不断进行完善，不过在实践操作中还是会出现很多问题，比如主体范围，严重结果的程度，追诉时效起算等难题。本文通过几个典型案例来探讨相关问题，提出观点来完善滥用职权罪。滥用职权罪的主体是刑法中规定的特殊主体，它需要具备一定的身份。这种特定身份往往具备特定的权利以及义务。对于滥用职权罪主体是特殊主体的规定，在立法上一直在不断完善。对于滥用职权罪中的“滥用”，这是客观上的行为表现，并不涉及主观上需不需要具有不正当目的，国家机关工作人员只需要采取了非法的方法行使职权，就已经构成了“滥用”。非法的方法又包括在自身职权内和超越自身职权外恣意使用职权两类。笔者认同通说的观点，即在客观上，“滥用”表现为擅自行使有权决定或者无权决定的事项，并不需要具备不正当目的。从非物质性损失结果的表现形式和特点可以看出，，认定非物质性损失结果是有困难的，在认定时很容易产生主观上的随意性，在司法实践中往往对一些非典型性的结果无需加以特殊证明，但这并不说明非物质性损失结果不需要证明，反而更需要认定。2012年两高公布了《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理渎职刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释（一）》，这一解释对于滥用职权罪的“重大损失”做出了认定标准，将非物质损失结果概括为“造成恶劣社会影响”，但还是没有具体细化规定出非物质损失结果的判定标准。之所以我国理论界对于滥用职权罪追诉时效的起算点众说纷纭，这与刑法分则中犯罪的成立条件的规定不同是密不可分的。我国的通说认为，根据犯罪的成立条件可以将犯罪分为行为犯和结果犯。前者是指一旦进行了某一行为，这一行为完成之时就判定犯罪成立；后者是指在犯罪行为实行之后，必须要出现某一严重后果才能判定犯罪成立。从《刑法》第397条对滥用职权罪的规定可以看出，滥用职权罪的成立要求出现严重后果，是典型的结果犯，犯罪成立是追诉时效的前提，所以滥用职权罪的追诉时效应该从严重后果确定出现时进行计算。
[Abstract]:This paper studies some difficult problems about the crime of abuse of power. The present is the key period of the transformation of socialist market economy. The crime of malfeasance, especially the crime of abuse of power, is becoming more and more important in the legal regulation and practice of judicial activities. Since the crime of abuse of power became a crime alone in 1997, the judicial interpretation has been continuously improved, but in practice there will be many problems, such as the scope of the subject, the degree of serious results, the limitation of prosecution and so on. This article through several typical cases to explore the relevant issues, put forward the point of view to improve the crime of abuse of power. The subject of the crime of abuse of power is a special subject stipulated in criminal law. This particular identity often has specific rights and obligations. The provision that the subject of the crime of abuse of power is a special subject has been continuously perfected in legislation. For the "abuse" of the crime of abuse of power, this is an objective behavior and does not involve whether or not the subjective need for an improper purpose is involved. The functionaries of state organs only need to take illegal methods to exercise their functions and powers. It already constitutes "abuse". Illegal methods include the arbitrary use of authority within and beyond one's own authority. The author agrees with the general theory that, objectively speaking, "abuse" is expressed as the exercise of unauthorized right to decide or not to decide the matter, there is no need for an improper purpose. It can be seen from the manifestation and characteristics of the result of non-material loss that it is difficult to determine the result of non-material loss, and it is easy to produce subjective arbitrariness when determining the result. In judicial practice, there is often no need for special proof of some atypical results, but this does not mean that the results of non-material losses do not need to be proved, but that the results of non-material losses need to be recognized more. In 2012, the Supreme people's Court [the Supreme people's Court] published the "Supreme people's Court," The Supreme people's Procuratorate's interpretation of several issues concerning the application of the law in handling criminal cases of malfeasance (1) >, which defines the "heavy losses" of the crime of abuse of power. The result of immaterial loss is summarized as "causing bad social impact", but the criterion of determining the result of non-material loss is not specified in detail. The reason why there are different opinions about the starting point of the limitation of prosecution for the crime of abuse of power in our country is closely related to the different provisions of the conditions for the establishment of the crime in the criminal law subrule. According to the general theory of our country, according to the condition of crime, the crime can be divided into the crime of behavior and the crime of result. The former means that once a certain act has been carried out, the crime is established when the act is completed; the latter means that after the criminal act is carried out, a certain serious consequence must appear before the crime can be established. From the provisions of Article 397 of the Criminal Law on the crime of abuse of power, we can see that the establishment of the crime of abuse of power has serious consequences and is a typical consequential crime, and the establishment of a crime is the premise of the statute of limitations for prosecution. Therefore, the limitation of prosecution for the crime of abuse of power should be calculated when the serious consequences are determined.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.393

【参考文献】