论事实的择一共同正犯

发布时间：2018-05-04 02:15

本文选题：共同正犯 + 择一的共同正犯　；参考：《西南财经大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：共同正犯是刑法共犯理论中的一个重要范畴,共同正犯的研究对于共同犯罪的定罪和量刑具有重大意义。在德、日等大陆法系国家,共同正犯是法定的共犯种类,刑法学者们对此进行了大量的研究,并获得了不错的成效。结合当前事实性质的犯罪论体系,本文通过理论梳理得出共同正犯成立的事实标准,再尝试以事实、价值为标准对择一的共同正犯进行分类探讨,只有符合主客观相统一此种事实标准的择一共同正犯,才能认定为共同正犯,而价值的择一共同正犯只有通过立法明文规定才能作为共同正犯处理,发挥价值补充作用。这种以事实、价值为标准对择一共同正犯现象进行的分类处理,不仅能够解决择一共同正犯的认定问题,同时具有体系性处理问题的意义。本文除导论和结语外,总共分为三个部分：第一部分,共同正犯的界定。共同正犯属于正犯的一种形态,对共同正犯进行界定首先要对正犯进行界定。目前,理论界关于共同正犯成立标准的学说主要包括共同意思主体说、间接正犯类似说、主观共犯论说和犯罪事实支配理论。本部分基于当前事实性质的犯罪论体系,首先对共同正犯认定的价值标准展开批判,特别是对犯罪事实支配理论中的功能性支配,罗克辛认为它是共同正犯的标志,但是功能性支配是以行为对整个犯罪的贡献大小来作为共同正犯的认定标志,这显然是一种价值判断。对于共同正犯的认定,应当采用事实标准,即主观上有共同实行的意思,客观上有共同实行的行为,共同实行意味着各共同者应当实行或分担实行行为。第二部分,择一共同正犯的类型。对于择一的共同正犯是否应当认定为共同正犯,理论上存在一些争议。本部分首先对这些争议按照肯定的观点、否定的观点和分情形认定的观点进行归纳梳理,再逐一进行评析。其次,在当前事实性质的犯罪论体系下,分别以事实、价值为标准对择一的共同正犯进行分类探讨,通过寻找组成并反映事实危险的因素,如空间、犯罪工具、视线等,透过这些因素设定一些具体的情形,经由对这些因素的划分来体现事实、价值的区别。第三部分,不同择一共同正犯类型的划分意义。通过上一部分的类型划分,可以将择一的共同正犯分为事实的择一共同正犯和价值的择一共同正犯。犯罪论都是具体的、时代的犯罪论,犯罪论与时代精神高度融合。而在现今工业化社会,形式化要求我们采用事实性质的犯罪论体系,因此对于择一的共同正犯,只有符合事实标准的,即在事实空间中各行为人之间能够通过互相配合、互相补充完成实行行为的,才能认定为共同正犯；而对于不能补充实行行为,只能起到精神支撑作用的,则属于价值的择一共同正犯,在犯罪事实体系下,只能成立帮助犯,即共犯,不是共同正犯。若要将其作为共同正犯处理,需有立法的明文规定。进行这种划分既是对罪刑法定原则的贯彻,同时也是对事实性质的犯罪论体系的一个回应。本文的创新之处体现在,结合当前事实性质的犯罪论体系,对共同正犯认定的价值标准展开了批判,并得出共同正犯界定的事实标准。对于择一的共同正犯是否应当认定为共同正犯,理论界存在不同的声音,主张分情形认定的观点为笔者所赞同,但这种观点单纯以院落、城市(或国家)为标准对择一的共同正犯进行划分认定,却没有从理论上说清楚成立共同正犯或不成立的理由,显得十分随性,感性有余,理论论述不足。这是理论研究上的一个不足之处。本文创新性地以事实、价值的标准为视角对择一的共同正犯进行分类探讨,通过理论和举例对这种分类进行详细的说明和论证,找到了择一共同正犯认定的解决之道,并指出了进行择一共同正犯类型划分的意义。本文的不足之处在于,在文章第一部分就共同正犯认定的价值标准展开的批判中,由于涉及德、日体系的刑法理论和相关的学说,笔者才疏学浅,对有关的理论知识可能存在理解和把握不够的情况,因此这部分的理论论述可能略显浅薄。同时,事实和价值是法学领域极具迷惑性的一对概念,犯罪论体系的不同,事实和价值的相互关系和地位也有所不同,在对事实和价值的理解上还有待进一步的学习、研究。
[Abstract]:The common principal offender is an important category in the theory of criminal accomplice, and the research of the common criminal is of great significance to the conviction and sentencing of the common crime. In the civil law countries such as Germany and Japan, the common offenders are the legal types of accomplice. The scholars of the criminal law have carried out a lot of research on this, and have achieved good results. The system of qualitative crime theory, this article through the theory of combing the fact standard of the common principal, and then try to classify the common principal offender with the fact and the value as the standard. Only the common principal offender which conforms to the subjective and objective unity of the fact standard can be identified as the common principal offender, and the total value choice is only the principal offender. It can not only solve the problem of identifying the common accomplice, but also has the significance of systematic treatment. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into three, in addition to the introduction and conclusion. Part one: the first part, the definition of the common principal offender. The common principal offender belongs to a form of the principal offender. First, the definition of the principal offender should be defined. At present, the theory of the common principal offender's establishment standard mainly includes the common meaning subject theory, the indirect principal offender similar theory, the subjective accomplice theory and the criminal fact dominating theory. On the basis of the crime theory system of current fact nature, this part first criticizes the value standard of the common principal offender, especially the functional domination of the theory of the domination of the criminal fact, Luo Kexin thinks it is the symbol of the common crime, but the function dominates the contribution of the behavior to the whole crime as the common principal offender. The identification mark is obviously a kind of value judgment. The fact standard should be adopted for the cognizance of the common offender, that is, the common practice is subjective, and the common practice should be carried out objectively. The common practice means that the common people should carry out or share the practice. Second parts, choose the type of the common accomplice. There are some controversies in whether the principal offender should be recognized as a common crime. In this part, first of all, this part makes a summary of these disputes according to the affirmative view, the negative view and the point of view, and then evaluates it one by one. Secondly, under the current factual nature of the criminal theory of the nature, it is chosen by the fact and the value as the standard. Through the search for factors that constitute and reflect the danger of the facts, such as space, crime tools, and sight, some specific situations are set through these factors, through the division of these factors to reflect the facts and the difference of value through the division of these factors. The third part, the division of the different types of common accomplice. Type division can be divided into the choice of the common offender and the principal offender of the value choice. The theory of crime is specific, the theory of the times, the theory of crime and the spirit of the times are highly integrated. The same principal offender, only in conformity with the fact standard, that in the fact space, can be identified as a common offender by mutual cooperation and complement each other by each other in the factual space, and it can only play the role of spiritual support if the act can not be complemented, and it belongs to the value optional accomplice, under the criminal fact system, only under the criminal fact system. It is not only the common principal offender to establish the accomplice, that is, it is not a common criminal. If it is to be dealt with as a common criminal, it is necessary to have the explicit provisions of the legislation. This division is a response to the principle of a legally prescribed crime, but also a response to the criminal theory of the nature of the crime. The author criticizes the value standard of the common principal offender, and draws the fact standard of the common principal offender definition. There are different voices in the theoretical circle for the common principal offender to be identified as the common principal offender, and the point of view is agreed by the author, but this view is only in the courtyard, the city (or the state) as the standard. It is an inadequacy in theoretical research that it is an inadequacy in theoretical research that it is an inadequacy in theoretical research that the common principal offenders of the common accomplice are categorized in the perspective of facts and values. Through the detailed explanation and demonstration of the classification through the theory and the examples, this paper finds the solution to the identification of the common principal offenders, and points out the significance of the classification of the selected common accomplice types. The deficiency of this article is that in the first part of the article, the criticism of the value standard of the common principal offender is concerned with the virtue, The criminal theory and related theories of the Japanese system are very shallow and may not understand and grasp the relevant theoretical knowledge. Therefore, the theoretical exposition of this part may be slightly shallow. At the same time, facts and values are a very puzzling concept in the field of law, the differences in the system of the theory of crime, the interrelation of facts and values. Department and status are also different. We still need further study and Study on the understanding of facts and values.

【学位授予单位】：西南财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】