论依“推定的权利人同意”之行为

发布时间：2018-07-24 11:23

【摘要】：在当今社会中,人类据以决定彼此之间行为模式的主要规范即为法律规范,相对于社会中存在的其他规范而言,其显然属于一种正式规范,并且成为了一种最重要、最有效的社会控制形式。然而,从人类生活中的点点滴滴来看,除了作为整体而存在的人类社会之外,在某些场合下,还可能存在一种“小型群体”,其内部成员间的交互行为往往并不受制于正式规范的强制性作用,形成这种局面的原因在于:该类群体内部的成员之间在交往过程中已经就某种事务的处理建立了一种彼此信任的人际关系,这使得任何正式的法律保护或制裁成为多余。因而在不影响全社会及群体外部其他成员的前提下,应该该“小型群体”中的成员在交互活动中就某种事务的处理而构建的“非正式规范”对正式规范作出某些调整与修正,以保证特定情形下人们行为规范的个别化与合理性。在刑法研究的领域,依推定的权利人同意之行为即属于这类情形,因为其要解决的问题恰好就是对于基于特定的关系而形成的“小型群体”中的人们在无法获得权利人现实意志的条件下,通过考察相互之间的特定关系和客观存在的情势,以期最大限度地接近权利人现实意志来处置对方利益的行为之定性问题。在这一过程中,上述“非正式规范”的重要意义即在于其是为行为人与权利人双方所共同认可的、从而在行为人处置权利人利益时所要遵循的规范。当“小型群体”中的行为人遵循了这些“非正式规范”(以不动摇正式规范对于社会中其他成员及社会整体之效力为前提),即便其行为看上去不那么严格地符合正式规范的要求,刑法也应当本着一种“网开一面”的精神,放弃对其作出评价。但是行为人在依推定的权利人同意的行为时,不能逾越正式规范所划定的界限,同时,应当考虑“社会一般观念”的要求。全文除引言部分外,分为五章,共计17万余字。第一章讨论了依推定的权利人同意之行为的概念以及具体分类。依推定的权利人同意之行为应当表述为:与权利人在所涉事项的范围内具有一定关系的行为人,因无法明确知悉权利人的现实意志,而通过考察自身与权利人的特定关系,尤其是相互间的交往过程和客观存在的情势,以权利人的行为倾向为导向处置原本应由权利人自身处置事项的行为,该行为在刑法上的意义主要取决于上述考察过程和行为本身,权利人事后的明确表态仅具参考价值。并且分析了“被害人”与“权利人”、“承诺”与“同意”等概念之间的区别与联系,同时强调了所谓的“推定”只能发生在处于某一“小型群体”内具有特定关系的行为人与权利人之间。具体而言,这类行为可以做如下分类:按照受益对象之不同,可分为:“为权利人利益的推定”和“为其他人利益的推定”,在“为权利人利益的推定”中,根据所推定事项可以进一步地区分为“与物品有关的推定”、“与人格有关的推定”和“对现时决定的推定”。第二章介绍了依推定的权利人同意之行为在外国刑法理论中的发展状况。在英美法系国家的刑法理论中,其是作为一种“辩护事由”存在的,而在大陆法系国家的刑法理论中,通常在“违法阻却事由”中讨论这一问题,依推定的权利人同意之行为的正当化根据,主要包括“事务管理说”、“紧急避险说”、“权利人同意延伸说”(“法益衡量说”)、“社会相当性说”、“被允许的风险说”以及“独立的违法性阻却事由说”(“结合说”)等学说,其中,对于“事务管理说”有赖于刑法中的直接规定,“紧急避险说”和“权利人同意延伸说”的提法可谓是基于该类行为之形象的对立,而“结合说”则认为两种形象兼而有之,应该认为:该事由之理论形象包括了紧急避险行为和存在“权利人同意”的行为,其中后者居于主导地位。真正能被视为在成立原理上对立的是“法益衡量说”(可以视为“权利人同意延伸说”)、“社会相当性说”和“被允许的危险说”,因为这些学说都是基于对“违法性”理解的不同而形成的学说对立。其中,“法益衡量说”是“权利人同意延伸说”(大致上的)另一种称谓,由于其对行为的性质采取“事后判断”的做法,不符合刑法作为社会科学的特点,而“社会相当性”这一理论则显得过于宽泛,“被允许的风险”主要针对的是过失犯罪的情形,而且其行为基准的构建基础是某一带有危险之行为所带来的利益与该行为本身可能造成的危害之协调。第三章阐明了本文认为依推定的权利人同意之行为属于“构成要件阻却事由”的原因。因为,构成要件符合性的判断与违法性的判断之间并非是形式判断与实质判断的关系,而是知性思维与辨证理性的关系,换言之,构成要件符合性的判断也要考虑行为对法益在实质意义上的侵害,而违法性的判断则是解决法益相冲突的问题,在依推定的权利人同意之行为中,由于体现了对权利人之一贯态度的尊重,因而不应当认为存在“法益冲突”,从而应当否定其实质的法益侵害,因此,其并非属于“违法阻却事由”。同时,刑法的目的在于保护法益,因而“法益”概念也就成为了构成要件的核心,否定了行为对法益的实质侵害,即否认了其构成要件符合性。学说史上对“法益”之概念存在诸多聚讼,但所谓的“法益”应当被理解为法治社会中的个人“自我实现与自由发展”的需要,为了保护法益,才能要求社会成员遵守一定的规范。并且,法益还应当是一个“前实定刑法”的概念,只有在其它手段都不足以对之进行保护的前提下,刑法才能登场。而在依推定的权利人同意之行为得以成立的场合下,对权利人法益的保护更多地依赖于其自身通过在构建“小型群体”中的成员均须遵守的“非正式规范”的过程中合理地表达自己的意愿,而不是诉诸于刑法的介入。第四章分析了依推定的权利人同意之行为在我国刑法理论中的发展状况。我国刑法学界针对犯罪构成以及“犯罪阻却事由”在其中的地位存在诸多争议,从犯罪构成各要件的研究内容来看,可以将所有的犯罪阻却事由都置于专事实质判断的“犯罪客体”中加以研究,在判断方法上,应当强调“社会危害性”这一概念对否定行为符合犯罪构成的作用。为了在一定程度上使得各类“犯罪阻却事由”在排除“社会危害性”的理由上显得更加明晰,可以将“犯罪阻却事由”分为因对社会有益、因客观危害性显著轻微、因缺乏人身危险性以及因所涉当事人之间的关系不属于“社会关系”等,而依推定的权利人同意之行为应当属于最后一类。同时,这一“犯罪阻却事由”作为一种“超法规的犯罪阻却事由”并不违反罪刑法定主义。这些事由之所以能够“超法规”地存在是因为现实中并不存在一个“万能的立法者”,从而能够制定出将任何一种排除犯罪成立的场合都包含在内的“犯罪阻却事由”。第五章以“非正式规范”为核心归纳了依推定的权利人同意之行为的成立要件。对于某个擅自处置应由他人处置事项的行为而言,如其欲成立依推定的权利人同意之行为,一方面不能逾越“非正式规范”的效力范围,从而成为正式规范的调整对象,就要求行为所涉及的事项必须能够由权利人自由处置,同时权利人必须有同意他人代为处置这些事项的能力,以及被“推定”的权利人意志具有自愿性。另一方面,“非正式规范”还必须根据行为人与权利人之间的特定关系、行为所涉及事项本身的性质、权利人的惯常行为及其现实意志是否存在进行建构,并以“社会一般观念”作为判断标准,在刑事司法活动中实现这一标准的“间接在场”与“直接在场”。
[Abstract]:In today's society, the main norm for human beings to determine the mode of behavior between each other is the legal norm. Compared with other norms existing in the society, it is clearly a formal norm and is the most important and effective form of social control. Outside of human society, there may be a "small group" on some occasions. The interaction between its internal members is often not subject to the mandatory role of formal norms. The reason for this situation is that the members of the group within the group have already established a transaction in the process of communication. A kind of mutual trust, which makes any formal legal protection or sanctions superfluous, so that, without affecting the whole society and other members of the group, the "informal specification" of the members of the "small group" on the handling of a certain transaction in the interaction is made to the formal specification. Some adjustments and amendments are made to ensure the individualization and reasonableness of the norms of people's behavior under specific circumstances. In the field of criminal law research, the presumed act of consent of the right holder belongs to this kind of situation, because the problem it is to solve is that the people in the "small group" based on a specific relationship are unable to obtain the right to obtain the right. Under the conditions of the real will of the benefit of the interests of the people, by examining the specific relations between each other and the situation of the objective existence, it is expected that the qualitative question of the behavior of dealing with the interests of the other person is maximally close to the real will of the right person. In this process, the important meaning of the "informal norm" is that it is for both the actor and the right holder. The norm in which the perpetrator disposes the interests of the holder. When the perpetrator of the "small group" follows these "informal norms" (in order to unwaver the formal norms of the other members of the society and the effectiveness of the society as a whole), even if their behavior looks less strictly in accordance with the formal norms At the request of the criminal law, the criminal law should also give up an evaluation of it on the basis of a "open side" spirit. However, the perpetrator should not overstep the boundary delimited by the formal norms in accordance with the presumed act of the right person. At the same time, the requirements of the "general concept of society" should be considered. The full text, in addition to the introduction, is divided into five chapters, with a total of more than 17 words. The first chapter discusses the concept and specific classification of the presumption of the consent of the right holder. The presumption of the consent of the right holder should be expressed as a actor with a certain relationship with the right holder in the scope of the matter involved, because it is unable to know the real will of the right person and by examining the specific relationship with the right holder. In particular, the intercourse process and the objective situation in which the right person's behavior tends to be disposed of by the right person should be disposed of by the right person's own disposal. The significance of the act in the criminal law mainly depends on the above investigation process and the behavior itself. The clear statement after the rights and personnel is only of reference value. The difference and connection between the concept of "victim" and "right person", "commitment" and "consent" and so on, and emphasizing that the so-called "presumption" can only occur between the perpetrator and the right holder in a certain "small group". Specifically, this kind of behavior can be classified as follows: according to the difference of the beneficiary, It can be divided into: "the presumption for the interests of the right person" and "the presumption for the interests of other people". In the "presumption for the interests of the right person", it can be further divided into "presumption related to goods", "presumption relating to personality" and "presumption of the present decision". The second chapter introduces the right to be presumed. The development of the behavior of human consent in the theory of foreign criminal law. In the criminal law theory of Anglo American law countries, it exists as a "defense cause". In the criminal law theory of the civil law countries, the issue is usually discussed in the "illegal hindrance cause" and the justification of the presumed right of the person's consent. It mainly includes "transaction management theory", "emergency avoidance", "the right holder agrees to extend" ("the legal benefit theory"), "social equivalence", "the risk of being allowed" and "the independent illegality of the story" ("the combination of the theory"), which depends on the direct regulation of the "transaction management theory". The formulation of "emergency avoidance" and "the right holder's consent to extension" may be described as based on the opposition of the image of this kind of behavior, while the "union theory" holds that the two images are both of them. It should be considered that the theoretical image of the incident includes the act of emergency avoidance and the existence of "the consent of the right holder", of which the latter occupies the dominant position. What can really be seen as opposed to the principle of establishment is the "legal benefit measure" (which can be regarded as "the extension of the right holder"), the "social equivalence" and "the permissible danger", because these theories are based on the doctrines of the different understanding of the "illegality". The theory of "social equivalence" is too broad, and "the risk of being allowed" is mainly aimed at the situation of negligent crime and the benchmark of its behavior, because it does not conform to the characteristics of the criminal law as a social science. The foundation of construction is the coordination between the interests brought about by a dangerous act and the possible harm that the act itself may cause. The third chapter clarifies the reason that the act of the presumption of the consent of the right holder belongs to the cause of "the hindrance of the constituent elements", because the judgment of the conformance of the constitutive elements is not between the judgment of the law and the judgment of the illegality. The relationship between formal judgment and substantive judgment is the relationship between intellectual thinking and dialectical rationality. In other words, the judgment of the conformance of constitutive elements should also consider the violation of the legal interest in the substantive meaning, while the judgment of illegality is the problem of solving the conflict of legal interests. In the act of the presumption of the consent of the right person, the right is reflected in the right to the right. Therefore, we should not think of the existence of "conflict of legal interests", so that it should be denied the essence of the infringement of legal interest. Therefore, it does not belong to the "illegal hindrance". At the same time, the purpose of the criminal law is to protect the legal interest. Therefore, the concept of "legal interest" is also the core of the constitutive requirements, denying the fact that the act is true to the legal interest. In the history of theory, there are many disputes on the concept of "legal benefit", but the so-called "legal benefit" should be understood as the needs of the individual "self realization and free development" in the rule of law society. In order to protect the legal benefit, the members of the society should be required to comply with certain norms. It is a concept of "prefixed criminal law". Only under the premise that other means are not sufficient to protect it, the criminal law can be put on the field. And under the circumstances that the presumed right person's consent is established, the protection of the legal interest of the right person is more dependent on its own pass in the construction of a "small group". In the process of "informal norms", the fourth chapter analyzes the development of the behavior of the presumed right person in the criminal theory of our country. There are many disputes in the criminal jurisprudence of our country in regard to the constitution of the crime and the status of "the hindrance of the crime". On the basis of the research content of all the elements of the crime, all the criminal hindrance can be studied in the "object of crime" in the substantive judgment of the crime. In the judgment method, the concept of "social harmfulness" should be emphasized on the role of the negative act conforming to the constitution of the crime. To some extent, all kinds of "offenders" should be made. The reason for the hindrance of the crime is more clear in the exclusion of the "social harmfulness". It can be divided into the cause of the "criminal hindrance" as a result of the benefit of the society, the significant slight of the objective harmfulness, the lack of personal danger and the relationship between the parties involved, and the presumed right of the right person. It should be the last category. At the same time, the "criminal hindrance" as a "super statute crime hindrance" does not violate the Legalism of the crime. The reason why the reason can be "super statute" is that there is no "universal lawmaker" in reality, and it can be made out of any kind of exclusion. The fifth chapter, with "informal norms" as the core, summarizes the elements of the establishment of the presumption of the consent of the right holder. For an act which should be disposed of by others without authorization, it is impossible to establish the consent of the obligee. Overstepping the scope of the "informal norms" and thus becoming the object of the formal regulation, requires that the matters involved in the act must be disposed of freely by the right holder, and the right holder must have the ability to agree with others to dispose of these matters, as well as the voluntariness of the "presumed" right person. On the other hand, "no" The formal norms must also be based on the specific relationship between the perpetrator and the right holder, the nature of the matters involved in the act, the habitual behavior of the right person and the existence of its real will, and the "general concept of society" as the criterion for judgment and the "indirect presence" and "direct" in the criminal judicial activities. The presence of the presence.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】