论刑法114、115条中的“其他危险方法”

发布时间：2018-05-26 16:50

本文选题：其他危险方法 + 公共安全　；参考：《西南财经大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：进入二十一世纪以来,社会更加复杂多变,人们的生活可以说是发生了翻天覆地的变化,风险与机遇之间的关系更加密不可分。科技的进步,在带来机会的同时,也带来了巨大的风险。例如,几年前发生的“三聚氰胺”事件依然让妈妈们心有余悸,“毒血旺”的味道依旧萦绕舌尖,以及孙伟铭等醉酒驾车案、私拉电网案等都给公共安全带来威胁。也正是由于这些危害公共安全的犯罪案件屡屡见诸报端,频繁的进入老百姓的视野,让许多不懂法的人都知道了“以危险方法危害公共安全罪”。然而司法实践对这些案件的处理却引发了很大争议,因为当现行法律不能对一些新兴的犯罪手段进行有效的规制时,司法机关往往在束手无策之时就会想起刑法第114和115条,并对其做扩大解释,以便将这些新兴犯罪囊括其中,实现打击犯罪、安抚民心的目的。因此不仅是刑法学界,就连普通民众都开始对本罪产生兴趣。笔者认为,不能否认司法机关的做法确实产生了一定的效果,但是其也有违背罪刑法定主义之嫌。学界也多次发声指责司法机关随意解释法律的行为,并对如何解决本罪适用问题提出了自己的看法。包括如何解释本罪犯罪客体——公共安全,以及如何限定“其他危险方法”的范围。然而尽管学界对这两个方面的问题做了很多的努力,但依然没有平息争议,尤其是对“其他危险方法”的界定。我认为之所以会这样的原因,是因为前辈们的研究都只解决了“症状”,而没有治“病源”,而之所以没有治“病源”则与我国当下刑法学界对犯罪构成属性的认识存在差异息息相关,忽视了在工业社会的大背景下,我们应该坚持罪刑法定原则,对犯罪构成做事实上、形式上的的理解,而不应该做价值上、实质的理解。本文的创作初衷就在于牢牢坚守犯罪事实体系的灵魂,以犯罪构成符合性为基础,始终贯彻罪刑法定原则和主客观相统一原则,主张在认定犯罪时只能以事实为入罪的标准,例外的价值补充入罪为辅助,这也是本文的一个创新之处。以期达到限制刑法114和115条中的“其他危险方法”的外延。本文除去引言和结语以外,共分为五个部分,主要内容提要如下：第一部分是理论与实践现状引发的思考,对理论研究现状的论述,主要从“病源”和“病症”两个方面进行探讨。“病源”就是犯罪构成的判断标准的选择,指出在刑法学界存在两种不同的观点,一种是认为对犯罪构成的判断应该是事实判断,一种认为对犯罪构成的判断应该是价值判断。前者认为构成要件是形式的,因此对犯罪是否成立应该严格按照构成要件做事实的判断；后者则以立法过程就是一个价值判断的过程为由,认为犯罪构成本身就是价值的,因此对犯罪成立应做价值的判断,即以社会危害性为标准。而笔者认为其实两者并无优劣之分,也不是绝对的相互排斥,只是在不同层面的地位不同而已。其次是对“病症”的理论研究,即“其他危险方法”的界定。对实践现状的论述则以司法实践中的几个典型案例为切入点,指出影响本罪成为“口袋罪”的因素除了立法、司法上的原因外,还包括对犯罪构成属性认识的差异。第二部分是对本文理论基础的分析,指出犯罪事实体系是社会发展到一定阶段的产物,而判断犯罪构成符合性的事实标准则是罪刑法定和主客观相统一原则的必然要求。在这部分内容中,笔者对罪刑法定的明确性以及主客观统一于犯罪事实都做了比较详细的论述。第三部分是对本罪犯罪客体所涉及的相关概念的分析,包括“公共安全”的释义以及对“不特定或者多数人”的分析。指出刑法学意义上的“公共安全”就是对不特定或者多数人的保护,而“不特定”应该是指行为人对其行为所侵犯的对象以及可能带来的后果无法事先确定,事态的发展完全脱离行为人的控制,危害后果随时可能增加,而不是对行为之初所选择的对象的不确定,并且不特定还应该具有从少数人朝多数人发展的趋势和可能。第四部分主要论述在犯罪事实体系下对“其他危险方法”的理解与界定,其一是对“其他”的理解,笔者认为“其他”虽然被诟病为“万恶之源”,但也有其存在的必要,我们不能一直处于要实现刑法的绝对明确的不切实际的妄想之中,而应该清醒地认识到,“其他”并不是毫无限制,在犯罪事实体系下,只要用事实的标准,按照同类解释规则对其进行限定和解释,就能实现其刑法的相对明确。其二这部分内容指出了“其他危险方法”的本质特征就是事实的危险,具体表现为行为本身的危险,而不是行为人和法益的危险,是手段的危险而不是对象的危险。其三论述了具体判断“其他危险方法”的方法,即从危险相当性的角度理解,“其他危险方法”必须达到足以致人死亡或者重伤的程度；必须具有与放火、决水等相当的杀伤力；必须具有一经实施便脱离行为人控制的特性。第五部分是解决问题,即理论对于实践的指导意义,用前文的论述来分析具体的案件。这部分主要选取了本罪在司法实践中被扩张适用的三个比较典型的案件,一是对盗窃窨井盖行为的评析,二是对随意伤人事件的评析,三是对“碰瓷”行为的评析。这三种行为方式在司法实践中都曾被认定为“其他危险方法”,从而以以危险方法危害公共安全罪判处。然而笔者认为不能一概而论,需要区分不同的情况,因此笔者试图以本文的观点来具体分析这三种行为方式。
[Abstract]:Since the twenty-first Century, the society is more complex and changeable, people's life can be said to have undergone tremendous changes. The relationship between risk and opportunity is more encrypt. The progress of science and technology brings great risks while bringing opportunities. For example, the "melamine" incident that happened a few years ago still let moms heart The taste of "poison blood" still lingers on the tip of the tongue, as well as the drunken driving case such as Sun Weiming, the case of the private pull power grid and other threats to public safety. It is because these crimes of public safety are repeatedly seen in the newspapers, frequently entering the vision of the common people, so that many people who do not know the law have known "the dangerous method". However, judicial practice has caused great controversy in dealing with these cases, because when the current law does not effectively regulate some of the new means of crime, the judicial organs often think of the 114th and 115th article of the criminal law when they are helpless, and expand their explanations in order to commit these new crimes. It is not only the criminal jurisprudence, but also the ordinary people are interested in the crime. I think it can not be denied that the practice of the judicial organs does have a certain effect, but it also has a violation of the criminal law. It explains the act of the law and puts forward his own views on how to solve the problem of the crime. It includes how to explain the object of the crime, public safety, and how to limit the scope of the "other dangerous methods". However, although the academic circle has made a lot of efforts on these two aspects, it still has not been disputed, especially the same. "Other dangerous methods" is defined. I think the reason for this is that the research of the predecessors only solved the "symptom", but did not cure the "disease source", and the reason why the reason why not to cure "the source" is closely related to the difference of the cognition of the Constitution attribute of the criminal law in our country, and ignores the big industrial society. Under the background, we should adhere to the principle of the legality of crime and punishment, to make a factual and formal understanding of the constitution of the crime, and not to make a substantive understanding. The original intention of this article is to firmly adhere to the soul of the criminal fact system, based on the conformance of crime, and always carry out the principle of unity of the principle of the legality and the subjective and objective principles of the crime. It is an innovation of this article, which is an innovation in this article, to limit the extension of the "other dangerous methods" in 114 and 115 of the criminal law. This article is divided into five parts except the introduction and conclusion, and the main contents are as follows: first Part is the thought caused by the current situation of theory and practice, and discusses the present situation of theoretical research, mainly from two aspects of "disease source" and "disease". "Disease source" is the choice of judgment standard of crime constitution, pointing out that there are two different views in the criminal jurisprudence, one is that the judgment of the constitution of crime should be the fact judgment. A judgement that the constitution of a crime should be a judgment of value. The former holds that the constitutive requirements are form, so that the establishment of a crime should be judged in strict accordance with the constitutive requirements; the latter takes the legislative process as a process of value judgment, and considers that the Constitution itself is of value, so that the crime is committed. The judgment of value should be judged by the social harmfulness, and the author thinks that there is no distinction between the two, but it is not absolute mutual exclusion, but the status is different in different levels. The second is the theoretical study of "disease", that is, the definition of "other dangerous methods". The second part is the analysis of the theoretical basis of this article, and points out that the criminal fact system is the product of the social development to a certain stage, and the judgment of the constitution of the crime. The factual standard of conformity is the inevitable requirement of the principle of unity between the legality of the crime and the subjective and objective view. In this part, the author makes a more detailed exposition of the clarity of the legality of the crime and the unity of the subjective and objective views on the fact of the crime. The third part is the analysis of the related concepts involved in the object of the crime, including the "public safety". The meaning of "public security" in the sense of criminal law is the protection of the unspecific or most people, and the "unspecific" means that the perpetrator's object to its behavior and the possible consequences can not be determined first, and the development of the situation is completely divorced from the actor. The fourth part mainly discusses the understanding and definition of "other dangerous methods" under the criminal fact system, and one is the theory of "other". The author thinks that the "other" is criticized as "the source of all evil", but it also has its necessity. We can not always be in the absolute and unrealistic delusion of the criminal law. But we should be aware that "other" is not unrestricted. Under the criminal fact system, we should use the standard of fact, according to the same standard. This part points out that the essence of the "other dangerous methods" is the danger of the fact, that is, the danger of the behavior itself, not the danger of the actor and the legal benefit, the danger of the means but not the danger of the object. The method of judging "other dangerous methods" is described in detail, that is to understand from the point of view of danger equivalence that "other dangerous methods" must be enough to cause death or serious injury; it must have the same lethal power as fire, water and so on; the fifth part is to be removed from the perpetrator. The problem, that is, the guiding significance of the theory to practice, and the analysis of the specific cases with the discussion of the previous article. This part mainly selects three typical cases which are expanded in the judicial practice, one is the evaluation of the behavior of the burglary cover, the two is the evaluation and analysis of the random parts of the personnel, and the three is the evaluation and analysis of the "touch porcelain" behavior. The three forms of behavior have been identified as "other dangerous methods" in judicial practice, and thus are sentenced to the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods. However, the author thinks that it is impossible to generalize and distinguish different situations, so the author tries to analyze these three ways of behavior in this article.
【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】：D924.3

【参考文献】