转化型抢劫罪之既未遂研究

发布时间：2018-08-05 12:05

【摘要】：转化型抢劫罪是法律拟制的罪名，在司法实践中一般参照普通抢劫罪定罪处罚。由于法律未明确规定转化型抢劫罪的既未遂标准，于是为刑法学界研究本罪的既未遂标准留下余地。分析转化型抢劫罪之既未遂标准必须在本罪成立的基础之上进行，只有明确罪与非罪才谈得上既遂与未遂，所以对本罪犯罪主体的界定、暴力胁迫的认定直接影响既未遂标准的确立。本文第一个部分从事实层面分析，发现转化型抢劫罪既遂与未遂的认定存在两个难点。第一、犯罪主体。《关于审理抢劫、抢夺刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》规定，行为人实施盗窃等行为，未达到“数额较大”，为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力胁迫，致人轻微伤以上后果的，构成转化型抢劫罪。换言之，行为人盗窃、抢夺、诈骗“数额较小”的财物，为窝藏赃物等而当场使用严重的暴力胁迫，如果未造成被害人受伤的结果，就不构成转化型抢劫罪；第二、犯罪行为。纯粹的语言胁迫（例如：出言恐吓，你敢拦我，我用刀捅你）、轻微地推搡抓扯并未造成轻伤及以上伤害（例如：被害人曾某抓住行为人马某手不放，，马某便拼命挣扎并将曾某左手咬伤）等情形在案例中被认定为转化型抢劫罪，这样的理解是欠妥的。犯罪主体和行为的界定直接影响既未遂的判断标准，所以本文采用身份犯说化解了难点一，并结合日本、我国台湾地区学者对暴力胁迫程度的分类以及大陆司法实践中具体案件情况，总结得出与转化型抢劫罪罪责相适应的暴力胁迫定义，化解了难点二。即：暴力是达到抑制人的反抗之程度的有形力，胁迫是使人明显难以抗拒。本文第二部分理论层面辨析了转化型抢劫罪的六种既未遂标准，并逐一阐释各个观点存在的缺陷。从更有利于保护财产权利和人身权利的角度出发，认定准抢劫罪的既未遂标准是：具备劫取财物或者造成他人轻伤以上后果两者之一的，均属准抢劫罪之既遂形态；既未劫得财物，又未造成他人人身伤害后果的，属准抢劫罪之未遂形态。但是，此观点存在一定的缺陷,如果暴力胁迫是实行行为之着手，那么本罪之既未遂判断便早于实行行为出现；如果盗窃等行为是实行行为之着手，此时又不存在类似于普通抢劫罪的危险性。为了避免这种尴尬的局面，本文第三、四部分从犯罪构成的角度提出对转化型抢劫罪既未遂标准的完善意见。转化型抢劫罪的犯罪主体是具备盗窃、诈骗或抢夺之故意，而已着手于盗窃、诈骗或抢夺行为之实行者，并从学理上论证了身份犯学说用于此问题的合理性。关于转化型抢劫罪的实行行为，则必须将盗窃等前行为看作“潜在的实行行为”，事后基于法定目的而为暴力胁迫，只是在结果上成为本罪的实行行为。简而言之，所有的盗窃等行为都有转换为准抢劫罪的可能性，盗窃等行为是准抢劫罪的“潜在实行行为”。关于实行行为的着手时期，则根据事后的溯及评价说，从事前判断有危险的行为是潜在的实行行为，到事后判断具体的危险发生时，溯及的将潜在的实行行为转化为现实的实行行为。
[Abstract]:The crime of transformation robbery is the crime of legal system. In the judicial practice, it is generally referred to the convictions of ordinary robbery. Because the law does not specify the standard of attempted robbery, it leaves the room for the attempted standard of the crime in the criminal law field. On the basis of the basis, only the crime and the non crime can be clearly defined and attempted, so the definition of the subject of the crime and the determination of the coercion of violence have a direct influence on the establishment of the standard of attempted crime.
The first part of this article, from the factual analysis, finds that there are two difficulties in the identification of accomplished and attempted robbery. First, the subject of a crime. < opinion > about a number of questions about the application of the law to the trial of robbery and the robbery of criminal cases, the behavior of the perpetrator to carry out the theft and so on, which has not reached a "large amount", in order to hide the stolen goods and resist arrest or In other words, the crime of stealing, snatching, and swindling "small amount" of the property, in other words, is to use serious violence to hide the stolen goods and so on. If it does not cause the result of the injured person, it does not constitute the crime of transformation type robbery; Two, criminal act. Pure language coercion (for example: words intimidating, you dare to stop me, I stab you with a knife), a slight push and a shove that does not cause minor injuries or injury (for example: the victim once caught a certain hand, the horse struggles and a left hand bites) in a case of transformed robbery in a case. This kind of understanding is inappropriate. The definition of the subject and behavior of the crime has a direct influence on the standard of judgement. Therefore, this article uses the identity crime to resolve the difficulties, and combines Japan, the classification of the degree of violence and the specific cases in the judicial practice of the mainland of China in Taiwan, and sums up the responsibility for the crime of transformation type robbery. Adaptive definition of coercion of violence has solved the difficulty two. That is, violence is a physical force which can restrain people's resistance, and coercion is obviously difficult to resist.
The second part of this paper distinguishes the six unaccomplished standards of the crime of transformed robbery, and explains the defects of each viewpoint one by one. From the point of view that is more conducive to the protection of property rights and personal rights, the unaccomplished standard of the crime of quasi robbery is identified as one of the two consequences of robbing of property or causing light injury to others. It belongs to the accomplished form of the crime of quasi robbery; it is the attempted form of the crime of quasi robbery, which has neither robbed the property nor caused the consequences of the personal injury of others. However, there is a certain defect in this view. If the coercion is the start of the practice, then the attempted judgment of the crime is earlier than the practice of the act; if the theft and other acts are true At the same time, there is no danger similar to ordinary robbery.
In order to avoid this embarrassing situation, the third, fourth part of this article, from the angle of the constitution of the crime, puts forward the perfect opinions on the attempted standard of the crime of transformation robbery. The subject of the crime of transforming the crime of robbery is the intentional of theft, fraud or snatching. The doctrine of criminal offense is used to the rationality of this problem. As to the practice of transforming the crime of robbery, the former acts of theft, such as theft, must be regarded as "potential practice", and then based on the statutory purpose of violence coercion, only in the result of the act of the crime. In short, all the theft and other acts have been converted to quasi robbery. The possibility, theft and other acts are the "potential action" of the crime of quasi robbery. In the beginning of the practice, according to the retroactivity of the post, it is a potential practice to judge the dangerous behavior before the judgment, and to judge the specific danger after the event, and turn the potential practice into practical practice.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.35

【参考文献】