刑事被害人同意的体系定位及成立条件研究

发布时间：2018-06-25 11:34

本文选题：被害人同意 + 体系定位　；参考：《山东大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：被害人同意是法益主体拥有自己可以支配的利益,当别人侵害这部分利益时,其表示的允诺或者同意的行为。被害人同意在犯罪论体系中的定位一直被德国刑法学界所争论,主要有“二元论”和“一元论”两种观点。“二元论”的观点认为应当依据案件类型的不同,将被害人同意区分为被害人合意和被害人承诺,后者主要包括对故意伤害和毁坏财产的同意,它阻却违法性,前者则包括除被害人承诺之外的其他案件类型,它阻却构成要件该当性；“一元论”者认为所有的被害人同意都阻却构成要件该当性,不需要区分案件类型。“二元论”和“一元论”不仅在体系定位上观点不同,双方对被害人同意成立条件的具体内容上,也是有一定差别的。受德国刑法学界的深刻影响,我国学者近年来也开始关注这个问题,但是研究论文远远不够丰富。因此,研究被害人同意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的地位,以及被害人同意的成立条件的具体内容以及与此密切相关的被害人同意作为出罪事由的具体界限,并用相关的法理基础来探讨几类被害人同意案件的成立条件,具有重要的意义。关于被害人同意、被害人承诺与被害人合意的语义界定,通过对国内外该术语用法的梳理,“同意”指的是对有权支配的法益,个人有权允许他人对这部分法益进行刑法上的侵害,它是一个广义的概念,“承诺”专指发挥阻却违法性功能的狭义同意,而“合意”则是指阻却构成要件该当性的同意。“被害人同意”包含了“被害人承诺”和“被害人合意”。通过对国内外现有学术资料的归纳整理,可以看出,“一元论”主张被害人同意是阻却构成要件该当性的事由。“一元论”的观点值得肯定,但有必要进行限定,即毁坏财物、故意伤害轻伤和其他案件类型的被害人同意都是阻却构成要件该当性的,但故意伤害致人重伤和死亡的被害人同意既不能阻却构成要件该当性,也不能阻却违法性,此时的被害人同意只能作为酌定量刑情节来加以考虑。得同意而杀人的行为当然会受到刑事处罚。被害人同意正当化的原理是连接被害人同意的体系地位与成立条件的关键部分,个人自由说能使被害人同意正当化,入有处分自己法益的自由,具有明显的合理性,但是需要有一定的限制,即要在法律允许的范围内行使自己的自由权,即人对自己的生命和重伤没有处分的自由,对轻伤和其他法益有处分的自由。刑事被害人同意的体系定位影响着其成立条件构建的原理,也影响着其成立条件的具体内容。被害人同意的成立条件包括同意的法益范围、同意能力、同意对象、主观真意、同意认识、同意时间、行为不得超出同意的范围等七个条件。医疗行为和体育竞技行为在被害人同意问题上有其特殊性,经探讨确定两种正当行为可以用被害人同意来解决,当然,其正当化根据和成立条件各不相同。
[Abstract]:The consent of the victim is the benefit that the subject of legal interest has at his disposal, and when others infringe on this part of the interest, the consent or the act of consent is expressed. The victim's agreement in the system of crime theory has always been debated by the German criminal law circles, mainly "dualism" and "monism". According to dualism, according to the different types of cases, the consent of the victim should be divided into the consent of the victim and the commitment of the victim. The latter mainly includes the consent to intentionally injure and destroy property, which prevents the illegality. The former includes other types of cases except the victim's commitment, which prevents the constitutive elements from being appropriate; "monism" holds that all the victims' consent prevents the constitutive elements from being appropriate, and does not need to distinguish the types of cases. "dualism" and "monism" not only have different views on the system orientation, but also have some differences on the concrete contents of the conditions of the victim's consent. Influenced by the German criminal law circle, Chinese scholars began to pay attention to this problem in recent years, but the research papers are far from abundant. Therefore, to study the position of victim consent in the three-class crime theory system, as well as the specific content of the conditions for the establishment of victim consent and the specific boundaries of the victim consent as the cause of the crime, It is of great significance to discuss the establishment conditions of several kinds of victim consent cases on the basis of relevant jurisprudence. With regard to the consent of the victim, the semantic definition of the consent of the victim and the consent of the victim, by combing the usage of the term at home and abroad, "consent" refers to the legal interests at the disposal of the right. The individual has the right to allow others to infringe on this part of legal interests in criminal law. It is a broad concept. "commitment" refers to the narrow consent which exerts the function of hindering the illegal nature, while "agreement" refers to the consent of resisting the due necessity of the constitutive elements. Victim consent includes victim commitment and victim consent. Through the summarization and arrangement of the existing academic materials at home and abroad, we can see that "monism" advocates that the consent of the victim is the reason why the constitutive elements should be prevented. The viewpoint of "monism" deserves to be affirmed, but it is necessary to limit that the consent of the victims of the destruction of property, intentional injury of minor injuries and other types of cases are all impermissible elements. However, the consent of the victim of intentional injury causing serious injury and death can neither prevent the due character of the constitutive elements nor the illegality, and the consent of the victim can only be considered as a discretionary circumstances of sentencing. The act of killing with consent is, of course, subject to criminal punishment. The principle of legitimization of victim consent is the key part of connecting the system status of victim consent with the conditions of its establishment. The theory of individual freedom can make the victim agree to legitimacy and has the freedom to dispose of his own legal interests, which is obviously reasonable. However, it is necessary to have some restrictions, that is, to exercise one's right of freedom to the extent permitted by law, that is, the freedom of no punishment for one's own life and serious injury, and the freedom to punish minor injuries and other legal benefits. The system orientation of criminal victim consent affects the principle of its establishment condition construction and the concrete content of its establishment condition. The establishment conditions of victim's consent include the scope of legal interest of consent, the ability of consent, the object of consent, the subjective meaning of truth, the cognition of consent, the time of consent, and the scope of behavior must not exceed the scope of consent. Medical behavior and sports competitive behavior have their particularity in the question of victim consent. It is discussed that two kinds of legitimate behavior can be solved by victim consent, of course, the justification basis and the establishment condition are different.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D914

【相似文献】