刑法中“足以”型危险犯的判定问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-26 11:17

本文选题：具体危险犯 + 抽象危险犯　；参考：《兰州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：刑法中的“足以”型危险犯,是指在刑法条文中规定只有当行为“足以”造成某种实害的结果或危险,才构成犯罪的六种情形,即破坏交通工具罪、破坏交通设施罪、生产、销售不符合安全标准的食品罪、生产、销售不符合标准的医用器材罪、非法采集、供应血液、制作、供应血液制品罪和运送他人偷越国(边)境罪的法定刑升格条件第二项。刑法理论上通常将该类型的危险犯定性为具体危险犯。近年来,随着学者们重新审视危险犯的分类,发现刑法条文中含有“足以”条款的犯罪,既不同于典型的具体危险犯,又有异于典型的抽象危险犯。因此,对把“足以”作为具体危险犯标志的危险犯二分理论提出了质疑,并探索对“足以”型危险犯进行合理定性的理论基础,这些理论对于“足以”型危险犯定性的分歧,主要表现在对“足以”条款的认识上。而且司法实务中也没有统一的标准来判断行为是否满足刑法条文规定的“足以”条款,造成同案不同判现象的时有发生,这对司法的权威性及公信力造成极大的威胁。为解决“足以”型危险犯在理论定性上的分歧与司法实践中存在的问题,有必要对该类型的犯罪进行深入研究。本文以实践中的判例为引入,对学者们的理论观点进行了比较分析,从而选择了其中较合理的适格犯(足以犯)理论作为“足以”型危险犯的理论基础,对“足以”型危险犯进行理论定性。而对于本类型犯罪中“足以”条款判定方法的选择,本文对学者们关于“危险”判断学说的优点进行了借鉴,在此基础上选择了本文所主张的“应以事后查明的行为时存在的与行为有关的客观事实为判断材料,站在行为时的立场,根据一般人的标准来进行判断,但根据一般人的标准认为行为不具有‘足以’的危险性,而根据科学因果法则认为行为具有‘足以’的危险性时,以科学的因果法则为标准,并同时考察是否存在阻碍危险变成现实的否定因素及行为人对于不防止实害发生主观上是否至少存在过失”,并将该判断方法运用到具体的案例中,以检验该判断方法的合理性。
[Abstract]:The "sufficient" type of dangerous crime in the criminal law means that only when the act is "sufficient" to cause a certain result or danger of actual harm can it constitute a crime, that is, the crime of destroying means of transport, the crime of destroying traffic facilities, and the crime of production. The crime of selling food that does not meet the safety standard, the crime of producing and selling medical equipment that does not conform to the standard, the crime of illegally collecting, supplying, producing, supplying blood products and the legal penalty of transporting others to cross the border of the country (border), item 2. In theory, the criminal law usually regards this type of dangerous crime as a specific dangerous crime. In recent years, as scholars re-examine the classification of dangerous crimes, it is found that the crimes which contain "sufficient" clauses in the articles of criminal law are not only different from typical concrete dangerous crimes, but also different from the typical abstract dangerous crimes. Therefore, the dichotomy theory of "sufficient" as a sign of specific dangerous crime is questioned, and the theoretical basis of reasonable qualitative analysis of "sufficient" type of dangerous crime is explored, which is different from that of "sufficient" type of dangerous crime. It is mainly manifested in the understanding of the "sufficient" clause. Moreover, there is no uniform standard in judicial practice to judge whether the behavior meets the "sufficient" clause stipulated in the articles of criminal law, which causes the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case to occur from time to time, which poses a great threat to the authority and credibility of the judicature. In order to solve the theoretical and qualitative differences and the problems in judicial practice, it is necessary to conduct a thorough study on this type of crime. Based on the practical case law, this paper makes a comparative analysis of the scholars' theoretical viewpoints, and selects the more reasonable theory of "sufficient offence" as the theoretical basis of the "sufficient" type of dangerous crime. The theoretical characterization of the "sufficient" type of dangerous crime is carried out. As for the choice of the "sufficient" clause in this type of crime, this article draws lessons from the merits of the scholars' judgment theory of "danger". On this basis, the author chooses the "objective facts related to the behavior which exist in the course of the subsequent investigation" as the judgment material, stands on the standpoint of the behavior, and makes the judgment according to the standard of the general person. But when an act is not considered to be 'sufficient' by the standard of the average person, and if the act is considered to be 'sufficient' according to the scientific law of causation, the scientific law of causation is the criterion. At the same time, the author examines whether there are negative factors that prevent the danger from becoming a reality and whether the perpetrator has at least the subjective fault to prevent the actual harm ", and applies the judgment method to the concrete case. To test the reasonableness of the judgment method.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】