不能犯理论研究

发布时间：2018-09-01 12:37

【摘要】：我国现行刑法一直没有关于不能犯的规定，理论界和司法实践中也长时期将不能犯作为未遂犯的一种来处理。近年来，开始有越来越多的学者对此进行反思，并研究我国究竟应该采取怎样的不能犯理论。虽然不能犯是刑法中很小的一个问题，但是对于不能犯的可罚性的态度，反映了一个学者所持的刑法主客观立场，不能犯理论的发展，最能代表刑法基本立场的发展，有鉴于此，本文将对不能犯理论的发展、概念、特征，以及各种不能犯可罚性判断标准的危险性学说进行对比研究，并提出笔者所支持的由日本学者山口厚教授主张的假定事实说。不能犯理论是由近代刑法学之父费尔巴哈提出来的，不能犯的理论就是关于不能犯是否可罚的理论，对此自费尔巴哈之后产生了许多不同的学说，主要有主观的危险性学说中的纯粹的主观说、抽象的危险说、印象说等等，客观的危险说主要有具体危险说、客观危险说以及各种修正的客观危险说。笔者认为不能犯就是指行为人由于对事实认识错误，自以为已经着手实行犯罪行为，但由于根本不可能既遂而否定其成立未遂犯而成为不可罚的情况。其具体特征主要有两个方面：（一）具有外观上的着手实行，因为法律关注的是外部行为，不能犯是“没能犯”而不是“没去犯”，因此必须要有一定的行为才能支撑其存在的可能性，但是又由于不能犯的本质上是不能对法益造成侵害或者威胁的，故其与刑法所规范的犯罪行为中的实行行为又有所差异，也就是其仅仅具备外观上的着手实行；（二）既遂不能性，不能犯行为人的行为，不具备导致外界发生具有刑法重要性的变动的可能性，因此绝不可能构成犯罪。对于其不能的原因必须与认识错误区别开来，认识错误是对存在故意与否的判断标准，而不能犯则是存在明确的犯罪故意的，只不过因行为的性质或者行为对象的性质等原因导致不可能造成法益侵害。主观主义的危险性学说把行为人作为犯罪的核心要素，将行为的危险性格作为认罪基础，强调社会本位。而客观主义的危险性学说注重行为或者结果，强调个人本位，主张对国家权力进行限制，以保障个人自由。在客观主义阵营中又有行为无价值与结果无价值的争论，体现在具体学说上表现为具体危险说主张行为无价值，，其他的客观危险说主张结果无价值，笔者赞成结果无价值的观点，认为行为只有具备造成法益侵害的危险性才具有可罚性，仅仅具备规范违反性的行为是不可罚的，因为刑法规范的最终目的是保护法益。在此基础上，笔者认为山口厚教授的假定事实说是最适合我国刑法的危险性学说，该学说认为对于危险性的判断首先要查明未发生结果的原因，进而科学的探明何种事实存在的情况下结果会发生，然后判断该假定的事实存在的可能性。我国现在对于不能犯的处理实际上和抽象危险说是一致的，但是我国现行刑法的基本立场是客观的，抽象危险说明显不能满足刑法发展的要求，而假定事实说坚持客观主义立场，贯彻彻底的结果无价值论，能够满足刑法谦抑性的要求，因此是与我国刑法相适应的危险性判断学说，故笔者赞成假定事实说。
[Abstract]:In recent years, more and more scholars have begun to reflect on this, and to study what kind of theory we should adopt. Although impossibility is a very small one in criminal law. However, the attitude towards the punishability of impossibility reflects a scholar's subjective and objective standpoint of criminal law, the development of the theory of impossibility of crime, and the development of the basic standpoint of criminal law. In view of this, this paper will carry out the development of the theory of impossibility of crime, the concept, the characteristics, and the danger theory of the judgment standard of impossibility of punishment. Comparative study, and put forward the author supported by the Japanese scholar Yamaguchi Hou advocated the assumption that the fact that.
The theory of impossibility of crime was put forward by Feuerbach, the father of modern criminal jurisprudence. The theory of impossibility of crime is the theory of whether impossibility of crime is punishable. Since Feuerbach, there have been many different theories, such as the pure subjective theory in the subjective danger theory, the abstract danger theory, the impression theory and so on, the objective danger theory. There are mainly concrete dangers, objective danger and various objective dangers.
The author holds that impossibility refers to the situation in which the perpetrator, because of his misunderstanding of the facts, assumes that he has already begun to commit a crime, but negates his attempted crime because it is impossible to accomplish it at all. The specific characteristics of impossibility include two main aspects: (1) the appearance of the implementation of the proceeding, because the law is concerned about the external environment. Behavior, can not commit is "unable to commit" rather than "not to commit", so there must be a certain act to support its existence possibility, but also because the essence of can not commit an infringement or threat to the legal interests, so it is different from the criminal law in the practice of criminal acts, that is, it is only It is impossible to commit a crime because of its appearance; (2) accomplished impossibility, impossibility of committing the act of the perpetrator, and impossibility of causing changes of criminal law importance to the outside world. The reason for its impossibility must be distinguished from the mistake of cognition, which is the criterion of judging whether there is intent or not, but not. The enabled offender has a clear criminal intent, but because of the nature of the act or the nature of the object of the act, it is impossible to cause infringement of legal interests.
The dangerous doctrine of subjectivism regards the actor as the core element of crime, the dangerous character of behavior as the basis of confession, and stresses the social standard. Debate for worthlessness and worthlessness of consequence is manifested in concrete doctrine that behavior is worthless and other objective danger doctrine that result is worthless. The author agrees with the view that behavior is punishable only if it has the danger of causing infringement of legal interests and only has the practice of violating norms. On this basis, the author thinks that Professor Yamaguchi's hypothetical facts theory is the most suitable dangerous theory for our country's criminal law. The theory holds that the judgment of danger should first find out the reason why no result has occurred, and then scientifically find out what facts exist. The following results will occur and then the possibility of the existence of the hypothetical facts will be judged.The treatment of impossibility in China is in fact consistent with the abstract danger theory,but the basic position of the current criminal law in China is objective.The abstract danger statement obviously can not meet the requirements of the development of the criminal law. The thorough and thorough theory of the value of consequence can satisfy the requirement of modesty and restraint of criminal law, so it is a theory of danger judgment adapted to our criminal law.
【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

【参考文献】