论不作为犯罪之先行行为

发布时间：2018-05-08 20:14

本文选题：先行行为 + 作为义务来源　；参考：《复旦大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：先行行为能够成为不纯正不作为犯罪的义务来源,已是刑法不作为犯罪体系中的通说。随着对先行行为理论研究的加深,学者们的观点随之出现了很多分歧,这其中比较有代表性的问题有,产生作为义务的来源的先行行为,其存在的合理性是什么?先行行为的成立条件有哪些?先行行为的范围外延等等诸多问题。为了解答这些问题,本文翻阅了大量的书籍和查阅了以往的研究资料,借鉴比教学的研究方法,对于探析先行行为理论展开了详细的论述,全文的写作结构是总分式,一共四章,每一章都针对一个问题进行整体的总结和归纳。现做如下分析：第一章为“不作为犯先行行为概述”。第一节是简述先行行为,通过学术界对先行行为的定义,指出在先行为与其产生的义务密不可分,其次通过先行行为的历史沿革指出了其发展趋势,最后通过介绍先行行为在我国的发展现状,点明先行行为理论在刑法意义上的价值。第二章为“先行行为成为作为义务的理论依据”。先行行为到底能否产生作为义务?产生作为义务的根据是什么?国内理论界有两种相反的声音：肯定说和否定说。前者又细分为道德根据说和法律根据说。通过对上述学说的深度分析,作者认同道德根据说的观点,承认先行行为作为义务的实质上是道德义务,是最低限度的道德。最后,探讨了先行行为与其他三种作为义务来源的关系,指出四种义务来源既相互依存又相互排斥。第三章为“先行行为产生作为义务的条件”。先行行为的成立需要具备哪些因素是学术界长期存在的话题。作者从四个方面给出了答案,先行行为首先是由本人做出的,不能是第三人的行为,更不是所有的在场人员。其次先行行为一要造成法律禁止的危险状态,二要对该危害后果存在直接性的因果关系。最后,先行行为人排除该危险要具备主客观的救助能力。第四章为“先行行为的范围”。该部分是全文的重点和落脚点,第一节讨论的主要问题是先行行为的违法性是否影响其产生作为义务。由于实践中频发的合法行为造成当事人的危害后果的案例,笔者认为此时的合法行为与危险状态之间具有因果关系,因此先行行为包含部分正当行为。第二节针对犯罪行为与先行行为二者的关系,探讨了其构成犯罪的内在属性,作者从犯罪的两个主观方面,即故意和过失的角度将犯罪行为分成两大类,分别进行解释,认为先行行为不排斥犯罪行为。第三节是关于不作为能不能成立先行行为。犯罪的本质特点之一是应受刑罚处罚,由于不作为引起的危害归根到底还是因为作为,所以只有作为行为才能成立先行行为。最后一节是关于有责性对于先行行为的影响。作者指出法律评价的结果与作为义务本身是两个层次的问题,不能相混淆,二者没有必然的联系。因此,无责行为在一定条件下也可以产生作为义务。
[Abstract]:The antecedent act can become the obligation source of the crime of nonfeasance, and it is the general theory in the criminal law system of omission. With the deepening of the research on the theory of antecedent behavior, there are many differences in the viewpoints of the scholars. Among them, the representative problem is, what is the rationality of the existence of the antecedent behavior as the source of the obligation? What are the conditions for the establishment of antecedents? The scope extension of antecedents and so on. In order to answer these questions, this paper looks through a large number of books and previous research materials, draws lessons from the research method of comparative teaching, and discusses in detail the theory of the antecedent behavior. The writing structure of the full text is a general formula. A total of four chapters, each chapter for a problem for the overall summary and induction. This paper makes the following analysis: the first chapter is an overview of the behavior of omission in advance. The first section is a brief introduction of antecedent behavior. Through the definition of antecedent act in academic circles, the author points out that the preemptive act is inextricably related to its obligations, and then points out its developing trend through the historical evolution of antecedent behavior. Finally, by introducing the present situation of the advance act in our country, the author points out the value of the theory of the leading act theory in the criminal law. The second chapter is the theoretical basis of the first act as an obligation. Can the first act produce the obligation of action? What is the basis on which the obligation arises? There are two opposing voices in the domestic theoretical circle: affirmative and negative. The former is subdivided into moral basis and legal basis. Through the deep analysis of the above theories, the author agrees with the viewpoint of moral basis, and concedes that the first act is essentially a moral obligation and a minimum moral. Finally, the relationship between the antecedent behavior and the other three sources of obligation is discussed, and it is pointed out that the four sources of obligation are interdependent and mutually exclusive. The third chapter is "the condition that the antecedent act produces as obligation". What factors need to be possessed in the establishment of antecedents is a long-standing topic in academic circles. The author gives the answer from four aspects: the first action is made by oneself, not the behavior of the third party, not all the people present. Secondly, the antecedent act should cause the dangerous state prohibited by law, and have a direct causality to the harmful consequence. Finally, the actor must have subjective and objective ability to rescue the danger. The fourth chapter is the scope of antecedents. In the first section, the main problem is whether the illegality of antecedents affects the obligation to act. Due to the case of the harmful consequences caused by the frequent legal act in practice, the author thinks that there is a causal relationship between the lawful act and the dangerous state at this time, so the antecedent behavior includes some legitimate acts. The second section aims at the relationship between the criminal behavior and the antecedent behavior, discusses the intrinsic attribute of its constitution crime, the author divides the criminal behavior into two categories from two subjective aspects of the crime, that is, intentional and negligent, and explains it separately. It is believed that the advance act does not exclude the criminal act. The third section is about whether omission can be established as a leading act. One of the essential characteristics of crime is that it should be punished by penalty. Because the harm caused by omission is still caused by act in the final analysis, only act as a leading act can be established. The last section deals with the impact of accountability on proactive behavior. The author points out that the result of legal evaluation and the obligation to act are two levels of problems which can not be confused and there is no necessary connection between them. Therefore, the act of non-liability can also produce the obligation of action under certain conditions.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】