论随意殴打行为的定性

发布时间：2018-05-26 13:08

本文选题：随意殴打 + 定性　；参考：《湘潭大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：法律规定，随意殴打行为在情节恶劣时构成随意殴打型寻衅滋事罪。然随意殴打行为在致人轻伤、重伤或死亡时又可能构成诸如故意（过失）伤害罪、故意（过失）致人死亡罪等其它罪名。由于这些罪名在主客观方面存在着一定的相似和模糊，相关法律、司法解释不完善以及随意殴打行为在日常生活中的多发性，使得刑法中的随意殴打行为的定性问题成为司法人员的一大难题。想要准确对其定性，就必须有一个较为完善合理的定性方法。刑法学界，关于随意殴打行为的定性的学说大致有四种，即动机论、客体论、因果论、想象竞合论。四种学说分别从行为动机、行为所侵犯的客体、行为原因能否被人理解、想象竞合论等不同角度对刑法中的随意殴打行为的进行定性，有很好的研究和借鉴价值。但经过分析，发现动机论为随意殴打型寻衅滋事罪添加一个流氓动机的做法并不合理；客体论中随意殴打行为所涉及的几罪的客体存在很大争议；因果论的“因”是否能被普通人所理解也会因为各地、个人的传统思想、观念不同而产生分歧；想象竞合论缺乏刑法理论根据，对“从一重罪处罚”中的“重罪”如何判断没有阐明，定性时没考虑到“情节恶劣”这一要素，且没有讨论共同随意殴打行为的定性问题。都不是最合适的定性方法。通过分析，发现以想象竞合论作为随意殴打行为的定性依据有一定合理性，但需要进行完善才能适用。首先，阐明想象竞合论的刑法理论基础应该是主客观相统一原则；想象竞合犯的特征是一行为，，触犯数罪名；“从一重罪处罚”中的“重罪”应按“宣告刑比较说”来判断；随意殴打致人伤害、死亡的结果也属于情节恶劣。然后在主客观相统一原则的指导下，结合随意殴打的行为人的主观故意、客观行为，对随意殴打行为进行具体定性。最后，在共同随意殴打行为中，应该对造成了他人轻伤、重伤、死亡的行为人和其他没有造成了他人轻伤、重伤、死亡的行为人进行分开定罪。再运用完善后的想象竞合论分别定罪量刑。
[Abstract]:According to the law, arbitrary beatings constitute a crime of random assault when the circumstances are abominable. In case of minor injury, serious injury or death, the act of random beating may constitute other crimes such as intentional (negligent) injury, intentional (negligent) death and so on. Because these charges are similar and vague in subjective and objective aspects, related laws, imperfect judicial interpretations and arbitrary beatings are common in daily life. It makes the nature of arbitrary beatings in criminal law become a difficult problem for judicial personnel. If we want to define it accurately, we must have a more perfect and reasonable qualitative method. In the field of criminal law, there are four kinds of theories about the nature of random beating, namely motive theory, object theory, causality theory and imaginative competition theory. It is valuable to study and learn from different angles, such as behavior motive, object violated by behavior, whether the cause of behavior can be understood, the theory of imaginative concurrence and so on. However, it is found that it is not reasonable to add a rogue motive to the crime of random beating, and the object of several crimes involved in the act of random beating in the theory of object is very controversial. Whether the cause and effect of causality can be understood by ordinary people will be divided because of the different traditional ideas and concepts in different places; the theory of imagination competing lacks the theoretical basis of criminal law. How to judge "felony" in "punishment for a felony" has not been clarified, the element of "aggravated circumstances" has not been taken into account in the characterization, and the qualitative problem of joint random beating has not been discussed. Are not the most appropriate qualitative method. Through analysis, it is found that it is reasonable to use the theory of imaginative concurrence as the qualitative basis for arbitrary beating, but it needs to be perfected to be applicable. First of all, it should be clarified that the criminal law theory of imaginative concurrence theory should be based on the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity; the characteristic of imaginative co-occurrences is one act and offends a number of crimes; "felony" in punishment of a felony should be judged according to "proclamation of criminal comparison"; Random beatings result in injury, and the result of death is abominable. Then under the guidance of the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity, combined with the subjective intent and objective behavior of the person who beat at will, the concrete qualitative analysis of the random beating behavior is carried out. Finally, in the behavior of common random beating, the perpetrator who caused minor injury, serious injury, death and others who did not cause minor injury, serious injury and death should be convicted separately. And then use the perfect theory of imaginative concurrence respectively conviction and sentencing.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.34

【参考文献】