间接故意犯罪未遂形态研究

发布时间：2018-05-18 09:43

本文选题：间接故意犯罪 + 通论观点　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：任何一种理论学说，无论其在逻辑上面多么正确可靠，但是，如果根据这种理论学说得出的结论并不符合人们的“常识、常情、常理”，不能被人们所认可和接受，那么这种理论学说就不能说是合理的，其不具有实务可操作性。关于间接故意犯罪是否存在未遂形态这一问题，国外刑法学界和司法实务界基本上持的是肯定态度。然而，在我国却出现了截然相反的局面，，无论是刑法理论界还是司法实务界都基本上形成了一边倒的现象，认为间接故意犯罪不存在未遂形态。我国目前的通论观点认为，在间接故意犯罪情形下应当根据实际出现的结果来定罪，出现什么样的结果就定什么样的罪，即根据结果倒推行为人的主观故意，以结果决定行为人的行为性质。因此，间接故意犯罪也就只存在成立与不成立的区别，而不存在犯罪的特殊形态，即预备、未遂和中止。然而，根据结果倒推间接故意的通论观点在逻辑上是根本说不通的，其违背了犯罪发生发展的自然趋势，并且在司法操作过程中往往会产生通论观点与整个刑法学理论体系不能很好的协调和统一。例如，在偶然防卫情形、因果关系断绝情形、同时犯情形、直接故意与间接故意共同犯罪情形下，如果按照通论观点的逻辑来进行司法适用的话，那么通论观点就会与上述理论学说之间产生矛盾和冲突，进而造成在司法实务中，在这些情形下根据结果倒退间接故意，根据结果来定罪，往往造成刑法适用方面的困惑，造成定罪不能和处罚不能，从而有轻纵犯罪之嫌，或者其处理结果不能很好的实现罪行均衡。这也就使得通论观点的处理结果往往不能符合“常识、常情、常理”，不能被人们所接受，与人们的正义直观相违背。本文将通过设想案例进行归谬的方式暴露出我国关于间接犯罪无未遂形态的通论观点在司法实践中的操作缺陷，对通论观点提出质疑，进而从逻辑上对其进行否定，提出间接故意犯罪其实是一种不相容选言命题的观点，以此来确定行为性质。同时结合犯罪未遂的处罚根据，分析间接故意犯罪未遂情形下是否存在行为所造成的危险状态，提出以作为结果的危险作为间接故意犯罪成立未遂形态的认定标准，以期在司法实践中能够更好的解决上述矛盾和冲突，以实现准确认定犯罪，打击犯罪，更好的实现刑罚的一般预防和特殊预防的目的，使刑法的适用更好的符合“常识、常情、常理”，符合人们的正义直观。
[Abstract]:Any theory, no matter how logical it may be, but if the conclusions drawn from it do not conform to "common sense, common sense", they cannot be accepted and accepted by people. Then this theory can not be said to be reasonable, it has no practical maneuverability. On the question of whether there is an attempted form of indirect intentional crime, the foreign criminal law circles and judicial practice circles basically hold a positive attitude. However, in our country, there is a completely opposite situation, whether criminal law theory or judicial practice has basically formed a one-sided phenomenon, that indirect intentional crime does not exist in the form of attempted. The general view of our country at present is that in the case of indirect intentional crime, the conviction should be based on the actual result, and what kind of result will be convicted, that is, the subjective intention of the perpetrator should be reversed according to the result. The nature of the actor's behavior is determined by the result. Therefore, the indirect intentional crime only exists the difference between established and unestablished, and there is no special form of crime, that is, preparation, attempt and suspension. However, the general view of indirect intention based on the result makes no logical sense, and it runs counter to the natural trend of the occurrence and development of crime. And in the course of judicial operation, the general view and the whole criminal law theory system can not be well coordinated and unified. For example, in the case of accidental defence, disconnection of causality, simultaneous commission, direct intentional and indirect intentional joint crime, if judicial application is carried out in accordance with the logic of the general view, Then there will be contradictions and conflicts between the general views and the above-mentioned theories, which will lead to confusion in the application of criminal law in judicial practice. In these cases, retrogression and indirect intent based on results and convictions based on results often result in confusion in the application of criminal law. The result is that the conviction cannot be punished and the punishment can not be punished, so that there is the suspicion of light crime, or the result of dealing with it can not achieve a good balance of the crime. This makes the results of the general view often not in line with "common sense, common sense", can not be accepted by people, and people's justice and intuitive contrary. In this paper, we will expose the operational defects of our country's general view on the unattempted form of indirect crime in judicial practice, question the general view, and then logically negate it. The author points out that indirect intentional crime is an incompatible proposition to determine the nature of behavior. At the same time, according to the punishment basis of attempted crime, this paper analyzes whether the dangerous state caused by the act exists in the case of attempted indirect intentional crime, and puts forward the criterion of identifying the form of attempted indirect intentional crime as the result of the danger. In order to better solve the above contradictions and conflicts in judicial practice, in order to achieve accurate identification of crime, combat crime, better achieve the purpose of general prevention and special prevention of punishment, so that the application of criminal law is better in line with "common sense, common sense", Common sense ", accord with people's justice intuitionistic."
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924

【参考文献】