不作为犯中的先行行为研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 03:23

本文选题：先行行为 + 义务来源　；参考：《厦门大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：先行行为历来被视为不作为犯义务的来源之一,但先行行为保证人类型在刑法中仍存在诸多争议。例如应否肯定先行行为保证人类型及其实质法理基础,先行行为的判断标准,先行行为的范围及先行行为保证人的归责等,在学界仍存争议。本文将以解决这些问题为目标展开。’ 文章第一章旨在对先行行为历史发展及其理论前提予以介绍。本章第一部分介绍先行行为的历史渊源,第二部分分析先行行为在不作为犯罪体系中的地位。作为形式作为义务来源之一的先行行为,随着理论及实践对形式作为义务的质疑,其保证人地位也受到动摇。第二章旨在探寻先行行为的实质法理基础。本章整理分析德日有关保证人地位实质化运动中的各学说后,支持重视事实性要素的见解的“因果流程支配理论”。但由于对“支配”概念的界定标准不一样,导致同持该观点的学者在探究先行行为保证类型上,结论往往大相径庭。本章试图对各种“支配”概念进行解析,以最终肯定先行行保证人类型。第三章界定先行行为的判定标准并确定其成立范围。对于先行行为的判定标准本文引用Roxin教授从客观理论中推导出的先行行为的界定标准：先行行为必须是风险创设行为,必须与损害结果之间存在风险关联,必须不存在被害人或第三人的自我答责行为。根据前述界定标准,先行行为包括犯罪行为(故意和过失),但不包括合法行为。第四章确定先行行为保证人的归责模式。首先介绍及分析刑法理论中的三种主要归责模式。承认先行行为保证人类型,原则上对先行行为引起的犯罪应采用不纯正不作为犯的归责模式。最后,援引台湾许玉秀教授对先行行为保证人的分类,将先行行为保证人类型分为四大类,分别论述其归责模式的选择
[Abstract]:Antecedent act has always been regarded as one of the sources of the obligation of omission, but the type of surety of antecedent act is still controversial in criminal law. For example, whether we should confirm the type of surety and its substantial legal basis, the standard of judgment, the scope of antecedent act and the liability of surety of antecedent act are still controversial in academic circles. This article aims to solve these problems. The first chapter aims to introduce the historical development of antecedent behavior and its theoretical premise. The first part of this chapter introduces the historical origin of antecedents, the second part analyzes the status of antecedents in the crime system of omission. As a form as one of the sources of obligation, with the theory and practice of the form as the obligation of doubt, the status of guarantor has also been shaken. The second chapter aims to explore the substantive legal basis of antecedents. In this chapter, the author analyzes the theories of the substantial movement of the guarantor's status in Germany and Japan, and supports the theory of "causal process domination", which attaches importance to the factual elements. However, due to the different criteria of defining the concept of "domination", the conclusion is often quite different from that of scholars who hold this view in exploring the types of guarantee of antecedent behavior. This chapter attempts to analyze various concepts of "domination" in order to confirm the type of surety. The third chapter defines the criterion of the antecedent behavior and the scope of its establishment. In this paper, the definition standard of antecedent behavior derived from objective theory by Professor Roxin is cited: the antecedent act must be a risk-creating act, and there must be a risk correlation between the antecedent behavior and the result of damage. There must be no self-accountability of the victim or the third party. According to the above defined criteria, antecedents include criminal acts (intent and negligence), but not lawful acts. The fourth chapter determines the liability model of the guarantor of the first act. Firstly, three kinds of imputation modes in criminal law theory are introduced and analyzed. To recognize the type of surety of antecedent act, we should adopt the imputable mode of imputation for the crime caused by antecedent act in principle. Finally, according to Professor Xu Yu-xiu 's classification of surety for antecedent act in Taiwan, the author divides the type of surety into four categories, and discusses the choice of imputation mode respectively.
【学位授予单位】：厦门大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】