教唆犯的若干问题探析

发布时间：2018-09-04 14:20

【摘要】：教唆犯的的性质和处罚依据是教唆犯理论问题研究中的基础性问题,但是一直存在较大的争议,由于对于教唆犯性质的认识不同,对于教唆犯的处罚所主张的根据不同,我国刑法中关于教唆犯的规定特别是第29条第2款的理论上的定性和司法中的适用也出现了困境。本文试图通过对于教唆犯性质和处罚依据的界定,来说明如何认识《刑法》29条第2款以及如何对其进行完善以达到到立法和实践上的平衡。全文共分为以下三个部分。文章的第一部分首先提出应该在共犯语境下探讨教唆犯的性质,而我国关于共犯的分类标准和教唆犯的分类标准都存在一些问题。然后对于成立共犯为前提的教唆犯从属性说、教唆犯独立性说、教唆犯二重性说以及教唆犯性质摒弃说以及突破传统共犯框架的教唆犯独立成罪说这五种学说的观点作出详细介绍和评析。再对教唆行为的法律属性是实行行为性还是共犯性进行探讨,得出共犯性是教唆行为原则属性的结论。本文坚持教唆犯从属性的基本立场,但是认为应该对其进行修正解释。因为我国原则上是处罚预备犯的,所以坚持被教唆人着手实施犯罪时教唆犯才成立不太合理,应认定当被教唆人实施犯罪预备行为时(包括预备阶段的中止),对教唆者即可成立共犯。文章的第二部分首先分析了虽然我国刑法中没有明确规定正犯的概念,但若坚持共犯的立法体制是单一正犯体系会出现诸多理论困境,坚持区分正犯和共犯的二元体系比较符合我国立法现状。在探讨教唆犯处罚依据时,阐述了责任共犯说、不法共犯说、纯粹惹起说、折中惹起说、修正惹起说的基本观点和不足之处,并结合具体案例进行分析。本文坚持独立惹起说和共同惹起说相结合的教唆犯处罚依据,并结合《刑法修正案(九)》增设的关于恐怖活动教唆性质犯罪的规定对于我国刑法分则中设立的独立的教唆性质犯罪进行分析。文章第三部分是对《刑法》第29条第2款的认识和完善,本文认为在被教唆人没有犯被教唆之罪的情况下,两者不构成共同犯罪,应当跳出共犯理论去进行探讨。进而对教唆者和被教唆者在什么时候会成立共同犯罪,“被教唆者没犯被教唆之罪”的具体范围界定进行分析。关于刑法第29条第2款规定的教唆行为属于何种犯罪形态,本文对于理论界的不同学说进行评析,并结合域外关于独立教唆行为的立法规定及犯罪形态的分析,阐释了当被教唆者没有犯被教唆之罪时,对于教唆犯的处罚应当看作是对单独犯罪预备犯处罚的合理性,并对单独教唆行为的处罚范围进行限制,在此基础上对刑法第29条第2款的完善提出建议。
[Abstract]:The nature and punishment basis of the abettor is the basic problem in the theoretical research of the abettor, but there has always been a great controversy. Because of the different understanding of the nature of the abettor, the basis for the punishment of the abettor is different. In our country, the stipulation of abettor in criminal law, especially the theoretical characterization of Article 29, paragraph 2, and the application in judicature, are also in difficulty. By defining the nature of the abettor and the basis of punishment, this paper attempts to explain how to understand the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Criminal Law and how to perfect it in order to achieve a balance between legislation and practice. The full text is divided into the following three parts. In the first part of this paper, we put forward that the nature of abettor should be discussed in the context of accomplice, but there are some problems in the classification standard of accomplice and the classification standard of abettor in our country. Then, for the accessory attribute of the abettor whose premise is the establishment of the accomplice, the theory of the independence of the abettor, This paper introduces the five theories of abettor duality, abettor nature abandonment and abettor independent crime theory which break through the framework of traditional accomplice. Then, the author discusses whether the legal attribute of abetting act is practice behavior or accomplice, and draws the conclusion that complicity is the principle attribute of abetting act. This paper insists on the basic position of the accessory of abettor, but thinks that it should be revised and explained. Because China in principle punishes the preparatory offender, it is not reasonable to insist that the abettor should commit the crime only when the person who is abetted begins to commit the crime. When the instigator performs the crime preparation (including the suspension of the preparatory stage), the abettor can be regarded as an accomplice. The second part of the article first analyzes that although the concept of principal offender is not clearly stipulated in the criminal law of our country, if we insist that the legislative system of accomplice is a single principal offender system, there will be many theoretical dilemmas. The dualistic system of persisting in distinguishing principal and accomplice accords with the present legislative situation of our country. When discussing the basis of the punishment of abettor, this paper expounds the basic viewpoints and deficiencies of the theory of responsibility accomplice, the theory of illegal accomplice, the theory of pure irritation, the theory of eclecticism, the theory of correction, and the analysis of concrete cases. This article insists on the punishment basis of the abettor which combines the theory of independent irritation and the theory of joint irritation. Combined with the provisions of "Criminal Law Amendment (9)" on the crime of abetting terrorist activities, the article analyzes the independent crime of abetting nature established in the subrule of criminal law of our country. The third part of the article is to understand and perfect the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Criminal Law. This article holds that if the abetting person does not commit the crime of being abetted, the two do not constitute a joint crime, so they should be explored out of the theory of accomplice. Then the author analyzes when the abettor and the abettor will commit a joint crime, and analyzes the specific scope of "the abettor does not commit the crime of abetting". With regard to the criminal form of abetting as stipulated in Article 29 (2) of the Criminal Law, this paper makes an analysis of different theories in the theoretical circle, and analyses the legislative provisions and criminal patterns of independent abetting in foreign countries. When the instigator does not commit the crime of being abetted, the punishment of the abettor should be regarded as the rationality of the punishment of the individual criminal preparatory offender, and the scope of the punishment of the individual abettor should be restricted. On the basis of this, the article 29, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law is proposed.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】