论绑架罪的实行行为

发布时间：2018-10-10 13:05

【摘要】：绑架罪实行行为的单复之争一直以来都是理论界关于绑架罪的争论焦点,而因此导致的司法实践中评判标准的不一,势必会导致在司法实践中出现显失公平的现象,也违反了罪刑法定的原则。2009年2月28日,第十一届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第七次会议通过了《刑法修正案(七)》,2015年8月29日,第十二届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十六次会议通过的《刑法修正案(九)》都对绑架罪进行了修改,两次修正案的出台势必导致对于绑架罪保护法益、实行行为等方面的重新解读,也为本文的研究提供了时代背景。本文的研究方法主要有三种。首先,通过文献分析法,对理论界的争议做一定的梳理。其次,采用样本数据分析的方法对理论争议进一步印证。案例的收集均来自于北大法宝,样本数量100件,在时间、地域分布、制作审级等方面做了充分考虑,旨在保证样本数据的有效性、科学性与时效性。最后,在个别重要的理论争议点上,采取个案分析的方法,结合个案就相关问题做详尽的分析。本文论点紧紧围绕实行行为,依据提出问题——分析问题——解决问题的思维理路,从绑架罪保护法益,绑架罪实行行为单复之争,绑架罪犯罪形态,绑架罪目的行为与手段行为合理定位四个方面结合理论与司法案件进行分析。绑架罪保护法益方面,依据体系解释的方法,本文认为绑架罪的保护法益是人身自由、生命、健康权利,或者采用单一说的进一步细化认为被绑架人在本来的生活状态下的行动自由以及身体安全(择一关系)。在法益确定的基础上,通过理论分析与司法案例解析认定绑架罪的实行行为是单一行为,进一步从犯罪形态方面认定绑架罪的既遂不以提出勒索财物或者其他不法要求的目的行为所决定,也不应以目的行为未实现而主动释放人质而中止。最后,通过对绑架罪与他罪的区别以及绑架罪量刑上“情节较轻”案件的分析,对于手段行为与目的行为的作用进一步明晰,认定手段行为仍然是区分绑架罪与其他罪名之间的重要依据,同时主观目的是区分绑架罪与其他相似罪名之间的重要方面,而目的行为是推断主观目的、防止主观化的重要工具。目的行为作为量刑情节对于量刑具有重要的影响和地位,能够使得目的行为得到合理评价,使其所侵犯的法益得到保护。本文希望通过理论讨论与司法实践分析,能够对绑架罪实行行为理论的发展与目的行为的合理定位有所助益。
[Abstract]:The dispute over the practice of kidnapping crime has always been the focus of debate on kidnapping crime in the theoretical circle, but the difference of judgment standards in judicial practice will inevitably lead to the phenomenon of apparent injustice in judicial practice. On 28 February 2009, the Seventh meeting of the standing Committee of the Eleventh National people's Congress adopted the Criminal Law Amendment (VII), on 29 August 2015, The Amendment to the Criminal Law (9), adopted by the standing Committee of the Twelfth National people's Congress at its sixteenth session, both amended the crime of kidnapping. The introduction of the two amendments is bound to lead to the protection of the crime of kidnapping. The reinterpretation of the practice behavior also provides the background for the study of this paper. There are three main research methods in this paper. First of all, through the literature analysis, the controversy in the theoretical circle to do a certain sort. Secondly, the method of sample data analysis is used to further confirm the theoretical controversy. The collection of cases all come from Beijing University magic weapon, the sample number is 100, in time, the geographical distribution, the production and so on aspect has made the full consideration, in order to guarantee the sample data validity, the science and the timeliness. Finally, in some important theoretical disputes, the case analysis method is used to analyze the related problems in detail. The argument of this paper is closely centered around the practice behavior, according to the thinking of putting forward the question-analyzing the problem-solving the problem, from the profit of the kidnapping crime protection law, from the crime of kidnapping to the conflict of the single act, the form of the crime of kidnapping, and the form of the crime of kidnapping. The purpose and means of kidnapping crime are analyzed from four aspects: theory and judicial case. In terms of the interests of the law of kidnapping, according to the method of system interpretation, this paper holds that the law of kidnapping is the right to personal freedom, life and health. Or use a single argument to further refine the kidnapped person's freedom of movement and physical safety in their original state of life (optionally). On the basis of the determination of legal interests, through theoretical analysis and judicial case analysis, it is concluded that the practice of kidnapping is a single act. Further from the aspect of criminal form, the crime of kidnapping should not be decided by the purpose of extorting property or other illegal demands, nor should the release of the hostage be terminated on the basis of the failure of the intended act. Finally, through the analysis of the difference between the crime of kidnapping and the other crime and the case of "light circumstances" in the sentencing of kidnapping crime, the function of the act of means and the act of purpose is further clarified. The act of identifying means is still an important basis for distinguishing kidnapping crime from other charges, while the subjective purpose is to distinguish the important aspect between kidnapping crime and other similar charges, while the purpose act is to infer subjective purpose. An important tool to prevent subjectivization. As the circumstances of sentencing, the act of purpose has an important influence and status on sentencing, which can make the purpose behavior be evaluated reasonably and the legal interests violated by it be protected. This article hopes that through the theoretical discussion and the judicial practice analysis, can carry on the behavior theory development and the goal behavior reasonable localization to the kidnapping crime to be helpful.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.34

【相似文献】