确定故意与不确定故意研究

发布时间：2018-06-02 02:25

本文选题：确定故意 + 不确定故意　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文研究的“确定故意”与“不确定故意”这对概念，是大陆法系国家建立在“认识主义”基础上，主要以“认识因素”为区分标准的典型学理分类。本文研究的目标是对确定故意与不确定故意这一学理分类进行系统的梳理，以试图解决我国犯罪故意理论中存在的争议问题,并且为实践中的一些复杂情况寻找新的解决视角与突破口。所以本文将合理的借鉴与分析各种学说理论，并针对不足提出自己的观点，运用历史分析法、比较研究法、理论分析与现实分析相结合等方法采用层层推进的逻辑结构对其进行系统梳理与探讨。确定故意与不确定故意这一学理分类，自1906年《暂行新刑律》的实施而被首次引入中国以来，经历了先是繁荣发展的时期，继而与直接故意和间接故意混杂不分但仍有发展的时期，最后逐渐与直接故意和间接故意这一立法分类分开而作为一学理分类独立使用的时期。但由于学界对犯罪故意的研究越来越集中于“直接故意”与“间接故意”这一立法分类上，使得“确定故意”与“不确定故意”这一学理分类越来越不受重视，在现代我国刑法著作中对这一学理分类及其他学理分类的研究更多是一笔带过或仅是进行简单的介绍。由此导致我国犯罪故意理论严重不足并出现了一些争议问题。笔者为了给争议问题寻找新的突破口，并为给实践中的一些复杂案件提供独特的分析视角和理论依据，丰富我国的犯罪故意理论体系，为精确定罪量刑提供主观责任依据，以此决定加强“确定故意”与“不确定故意”这一学理分类的研究。中外对这一学理分类的区分标准有“认识因素”区分标准、“意志因素”区分标准以及“认识因素”和“意志因素”综合的区分标准。虽然各种区分标准均有一定道理，但是标准的选择，不仅应该根据我国犯罪故意理论的特点来选择，还要保证不能导致与其他故意类型相混淆。因为我国立法上对直接故意与间接故意的分类采用的是意志因素区分标准，并且二元区分标准会带来很多问题，综合诸多因素，最后笔者坚持以“认识因素”作为这一学理分类的区分标准。认定和区分确定故意与不确定故意主要是通过认识因素，而认识因素又包括认识内容和认识程度两个方面，其中认识内容中影响二者认定的因素主要有侵害性质、侵害范围、侵害结果几个方面。虽然笔者坚持以“认识因素”作为界定确定故意与不确定故意的标准，但是并不否认确定故意与不确定故意也包含“意志因素”的内容。但是由于“认识因素”才是界定二者的主要因素，所以在意志因素方面，笔者认为二者并无不同。在界定了上述前提的情况下，笔者对确定故意与不确定故意展开了深入的研究。先是对确定故意的特征、中外研究现状进行分析，以此来证明其具有独立存在的价值。最后又对不确定故意的特征、分类进行了研究探讨，进而对不确定故意在理论上存在的争议问题、实践中存在的难题进行了研究探讨，并且提出了一些自己的观点与建议。希望本文的研究能丰富我国犯罪故意理论体系，，形成我国的犯罪主观恶性程度体系，进而实现罪责刑的精确科学认定。
[Abstract]:The concept of "determination intention" and "uncertain intentional" is the typical academic classification of the continental law system based on "cognitive theory", which is mainly based on "cognitive factors". The aim of this paper is to systematically comb the academic classification of intentional and uncertain intention. To solve the controversial issues in the theory of crime intentional in our country, and to find a new solution perspective and breakthrough for some complicated situations in practice. Therefore, this paper will reasonably draw on and analyze various theories and theories, and put forward their own views, use historical analysis method, comparative research method, theoretical analysis and realistic analysis. In the same way, we use hierarchical logic structure to sort out and discuss systematically.
The academic classification of intentional and undetermined intent was first introduced to China since the implementation of the provisional new criminal law in 1906. It has experienced a period of prosperity and development, followed by a period of mixing with direct intentional and indirect intent but still developing, and gradually separated from the legislative classification of direct intentional and indirect intent. But because the study of intentional crime in the academic circles is more and more concentrated on the legislative classification of "direct intention" and "indirect intention", the academic classification of "determined intentional" and "undecided intentional" is becoming more and more unattached. The study of the classification of other theories is more than a simple introduction, which leads to the serious lack of the theory of criminal intent in our country and some controversial issues. In order to find a new breakthrough for the issue of the dispute, the author provides a unique analytical and theoretical basis for some complicated cases in practice. The criminal intentional theory system of our country provides the basis for the subjective responsibility for the precise conviction and sentencing, and decides to strengthen the study of the academic classification of "determined intentional" and "undetermined intention".
The criteria for distinguishing this academic classification include "cognitive factors", "will factors" and "cognitive factors" and "will factors". Although all kinds of criteria are justified, the choice of standards should not only be chosen according to the characteristics of our criminal intentional theory, It is also necessary to guarantee that it can not be confused with other intentional types. Because the classification of direct intention and indirect intention in our country adopts the discrimination standard of will factors, and the two yuan distinction standard will bring many problems and synthesize many factors. Finally, I insist on "cognitive factors" as the distinguishing standard of this academic classification.
To identify and distinguish between intentional and uncertain intentional intent is mainly through cognitive factors, and the factors of cognition include two aspects: the content of cognition and the degree of cognition. Among them, the factors that affect the recognition of the two are mainly the nature of the infringement, the scope of the infringement, and the results of the infringement. The standard of intentional and uncertain intention is determined, but it does not deny that the determination of intentional and uncertain intention also contains the content of "will factor". However, as the "cognitive factor" is the main factor that defines the two, the author thinks that the two are not different in the aspect of will factors. The intentional and indeterminate intentional research is carried out in depth. First, it is to determine the intentional characteristics and the present situation of Chinese and foreign research, in order to prove the value of its independent existence. The problem has been studied and discussed, and some own opinions and suggestions are put forward. It is hoped that this study can enrich the system of criminal intentional theory in our country, form the system of subjective malignant degree of crime in our country, and then realize the accurate scientific cognizance of the crime of guilt.
【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】：D924.11

【参考文献】