结果加重犯中的共同犯罪问题探讨

发布时间：2018-06-16 15:23

本文选题：结果加重犯 + 共同犯罪　；参考：《浙江大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条对共同犯罪进行了规定,但却没有明确"结果加重犯"的概念,对于结果加重犯中的共同犯罪问题的规定更是付之阙如,由此造成理论上的诸多争议,以及实务中的困惑。本文正是试图厘清结果加重犯的概念、特征与结构,并结合共同犯罪的本质,探讨结果加重犯能否成立共同犯罪,以及相关行为人对加重结果应否承担刑事责任。本文正文共分为六章,共约三万字。第一章:结果加重犯中共同犯罪问题概述。对结果加重犯的概念、特征以及结构进行阐述,并对共同犯罪的本质进行探讨,提出结果加重犯中共同犯罪的根本问题是加重结果能否归责于各行为人的问题。第二章:国内外对结果加重犯中共同犯罪问题的认识与处理。介绍英美法系与大陆法系对类似问题的认识与处理,其主流观点是要求共犯对加重结果主观上有预见可能性或存在过失。介绍我国理论与实务界的两种学说,即"过失同时犯解消说"及"实行过限说"。第三章:"过失同时犯解消说"不可采。过失同时犯解消说"虽然具有一定的优势,但同样存在不可忽视的缺陷。第四章:"实行过限说"不可取。实务采取的"实行过限说"在根本上适用原理有误。第五章:对结果加重犯中共同犯罪问题的认定。个人认为"过失"系罪责要素,对于成立共同犯罪不生影响,但对于加重结果承担责任客观上要求系共同行为创设的典型风险的现实化,主观上要求行为人对于加重结果能够预见,并识别出共同行为创设的风险。
[Abstract]:Article 25 of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China provides for joint crime, but it does not clearly define the concept of "aggravated consequential crime". As a result, there are many theoretical controversies, as well as confusion in practice. This paper tries to clarify the concept, characteristics and structure of aggravated consequential crime, and combines the essence of joint crime, discusses whether the aggravated result crime can be established as a joint crime, and whether the relevant perpetrator should bear criminal responsibility for the aggravated result. This text is divided into six chapters, a total of about 30,000 words. Chapter one: summary of joint crime in aggravated crime. This paper expounds the concept, characteristics and structure of consequential aggravated crime, and probes into the essence of joint crime, and puts forward that the fundamental problem of joint crime in resultant aggravated crime is whether the aggravating result can be attributed to each actor. The second chapter: domestic and foreign understanding and treatment of joint crime in aggravated consequential crime. This paper introduces the cognition and treatment of similar problems in Anglo-American law system and civil law system. The main point of view is to require accomplice to have the possibility of foresight or fault to the aggravating result subjectively. This paper introduces two kinds of theories in theory and practice in our country, that is, "simultaneous negligence and elimination" and "carrying out excessive limitation". Chapter three: the explanation of simultaneous negligence is not acceptable. Although it has some advantages, it also has defects that can not be ignored. Chapter four: it is not advisable to carry out the theory of excessive limitation. In practice, the application of the theory of excessive limitation is fundamentally wrong. Chapter V: the determination of joint crime in aggravated consequential crime. The individual thinks that "negligence" is the element of crime responsibility, and has no influence on the establishment of joint crime, but it objectively requires the realization of typical risk created by the joint act to increase the responsibility for the result. Subjectively, the actor is expected to foresee the aggravating result and identify the risk created by the common act.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924

【相似文献】