不可罚事后行为研究

发布时间：2018-05-31 14:34

本文选题：不可罚事后行为 + 不可罚的界限　；参考：《扬州大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：不可罚事后行为理论是当代刑法学界的一大课题,其诞生于德国而后发展于日本以及台湾地区,但在我国大陆刑法学界的研究和论著中对该理论却鲜有提及。然而随着罪数论的不断深入及发展,不可罚事后行为理论在认知和处理上便成了刑法学界在罪数论中争议的焦点,更加成为了司法实践中的真空地带。由此,对不可罚事后行为进行更深一步的理论和司法实践探索有着非常重要的作用以及意义。不可罚事后行为在缺乏构成要件的该当性上,使其与吸收犯相区别。不可罚事后行为属于本来的一罪,因而其与牵连犯不同。转化犯具有的法定性、转化性、唯一性和趋重性特征使得转化犯和不可罚事后行为亦完全不同。就不可罚事后行为与结果加重犯而言,不可罚事后行为不存在现行刑法对其的明文规定以及不可能出现更加严重的后果这两点上,二者也存在明显区别。不可罚事后行为在构成上存在主体、侵犯法益的同一性,犯罪的既遂状态以及形式上的构成要件符合性等四个特征。在不可罚的标准问题上,存在法条竞合说、包括的一罪说、构成要件解决说和、禁止重复评价说以及期待可能性说等诸多观点。但法条竞合说对于行为性质不同的事后行为的该种犯罪无法解决,构成要件解决说无法解释法益被二次侵害的这种事后情况,建立在吸收犯基础上的禁止重复评价说由于无法解决吸收的理由也使得观点陷入困境,期待可能性理论是建立在规范责任论的基础上的,其核心的观点是罪责,而罪责与不法构成大陆法系犯罪论的整体。因此,在我国语境下以期待可能性理论来解决行为的不可罚本身就存在前提是否适应的问题。针对不同类型的不可罚行为进行分别解释应该是合理的选择。不可罚事后行为应定位于量刑情节的功能。在定罪时应注意不可罚事后行为的构成避免重复评价和趋重倾向。在其影响量刑的情况下,应在判决书中阐明量刑理由。在司法实践中,不可罚事后行为在解决追诉时效如何起算一以及其在认定自首问题上具有特殊功能。
[Abstract]:The theory of irrevocable afterwards act is a major subject in the contemporary criminal law field. It was born in Germany and then developed in Japan and Taiwan. However, it is seldom mentioned in the studies and works of criminal law circles in mainland China. However, with the deepening and development of the theory of the number of crimes, the theory of unpunished afterwards behavior has become the focus of controversy in the field of criminal law in the field of criminal number theory, and has become the vacuum zone in the judicial practice. Therefore, it plays an important role and significance to explore the theory and judicial practice of the non-punishable post-action. In the absence of the constitutive elements, the non-punishable post-action distinguishes it from the absorbing offense. The act of non-punishment is an original crime, so it is different from the implicated crime. The legal, transformative, uniqueness and tendency characteristics of the transformed crime make it completely different from the unpunished afterwards behavior. There are obvious differences between the two aspects, which are not the explicit provisions of the current criminal law and the more serious consequences of the non-punishable ex post facto act and the aggravated consequential act of the result, and the difference between the two aspects is also obvious in the view of the fact that it is impossible to produce more serious consequences in the present criminal law. There are four characteristics in the constitution of the act after the punishment: the subject, the identity of the infringing legal interests, the accomplished state of the crime and the conformance of the constitutive elements in the form. On the issue of the standard of impunity, there are many points of view, such as the doctrine of concurrence of laws, including the theory of one crime, the theory of resolution of constitutive elements and the prohibition of repeated evaluation, and the theory of expectation possibility, and so on. However, the theory of competing articles of law can not solve this kind of crime with different nature of conduct after the event, and the solution of constitutive elements cannot explain this kind of situation after the legal interest has been infringed by the second time. On the basis of the prohibition of repeated evaluation on the basis of absorptive offense, the theory of expectation possibility is based on the theory of normative responsibility, and its core view is guilt, because the reasons for absorption cannot be solved, and the theory of expectation possibility is based on the theory of normative responsibility. And guilt and lawlessness constitute the whole of the theory of crime in continental law system. Therefore, in the context of our country, the theory of expectation possibility is used to solve the problem of whether the premise is suitable or not. It should be a reasonable choice to explain the different types of behavior separately. The non-punishable post-action should be defined as the function of the circumstances of sentencing. In the conviction, attention should be paid to the composition of the non-penalty-afterwards behavior to avoid repeated evaluation and tendency to accentuate. In the case of its influence on sentencing, the reasons for sentencing should be stated in the judgment. In judicial practice, the act of non-punishment afterwards has a special function in solving the problem of how to calculate the limitation of prosecution and in determining surrender.
【学位授予单位】：扬州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】