我国妨害证据犯罪的立法检视及完善建议

发布时间：2019-05-26 22:48

【摘要】：妨害证据犯罪系妨害事实认定型犯罪,属于妨害司法罪中的一个重要犯罪类型。妨害证据犯罪的类型,主要包括较为严重的妨害证据真实性犯罪、伪造、毁灭、隐匿证据犯罪、妨害作证犯罪和捏造事实诉讼犯罪。从我国刑法现行规定来看,我国对妨害证据犯罪的立法规制基本适度,但在少数妨害证据行为犯罪化认定的问题上,尚存在立法疏漏。本文试图对我国妨害证据犯罪的立法进行研究,构建一个罪名合理、体例周延的妨害证据犯罪立法体系。本文从三个部分对妨害证据犯罪的立法展开讨论。第一部分通过对我国妨害证据犯罪的立法现状及存在的问题进行梳理,分析出我国妨害证据犯罪的现行立法存在以下几个问题:首先,缺乏统一的罪名划分标准,使得立法混乱;其次,妨害证据犯罪的罪名体系庞杂,出现罪名不当交叉,造成了“欲密益疏”的现象;再次,妨害证据犯罪的体系不周延;最后,在立法政策上欠缺减免政策的考量,未纳入“容隐制度”。第二部分对域外各国的妨害证据犯罪立法模式进行了考察,并分别对各立法模式中的行为类型、体系外延和所含罪名进行了比较分析,将比较分析后的域外优秀立法技术借鉴为我国立法完善所用。本文认为在罪名划分标准、行为具体类型以及体系外延确定上,可以充分借鉴域外优秀立法技术为我国立法完善服务。第三部分借鉴域外经验并结合我国立法实践,对我国的妨害证据犯罪立法提出完善建议。在立法模式上,坚持集中立法模式为主,个罪单设模式为辅。在立法标准上,坚持行为类型为主体划分标准,行为对象、犯罪主体、诉讼性质为细化标准。在罪名体系的确定上,删除不必要的罪名,修正个罪缺陷,增加部分新罪,填补体系漏洞。在立法政策上,充分注重亲权,纳入“亲亲相隐”制度。
[Abstract]:The crime of obstruction of evidence is a crime of hindering the recognition of facts, which belongs to an important type of crime of obstruction of justice. The types of crime against evidence mainly include the crime of hindering the authenticity of evidence, the crime of forgery, destruction, concealment of evidence, the crime of hindering testimony and the crime of fabricating facts. From the point of view of the current provisions of the criminal law of our country, the legislative regulation of the crime of hindering evidence in our country is basically moderate, but there are still legislative omissions in the identification of the criminalization of the act of hindering evidence. This paper attempts to study the legislation of the crime of obstructing evidence in our country, and construct a legislative system of the crime of obstructing evidence with reasonable charges and extensive style. This paper discusses the legislation of the crime of hindering evidence from three parts. The first part combs the present situation and existing problems of the legislation of the crime of obstructing evidence in our country, and analyzes the following problems in the current legislation of the crime of obstructing evidence in our country: first of all, there is a lack of unified standard for the division of crimes against evidence. Make the legislation chaotic; Secondly, the charge system of obstruction of evidence crime is complex, and the charges are improperly crossed, resulting in the phenomenon of "desire for secret interest". Thirdly, the system of obstruction of evidence crime is not extended; Finally, the legislative policy lacks the consideration of remission policy and is not included in the concealment system. The second part investigates the legislative model of the crime of obstructing evidence in foreign countries, and makes a comparative analysis of the types of behavior, the extension of the system and the charges contained in each legislative model. The comparative analysis of the overseas excellent legislative technology will be used for the improvement of legislation in our country. This paper holds that in the standard of charge division, the specific types of behavior and the determination of system extension, we can fully draw lessons from the excellent legislative technology outside the country to serve the perfection of legislation in our country. The third part draws lessons from the overseas experience and unifies our country legislation practice, puts forward the consummation suggestion to our country hindrance evidence crime legislation. In the legislative mode, adhere to the centralized legislative model, individual crime single mode as auxiliary. In the legislative standard, insist that the behavior type is the subject division standard, the behavior object, the crime subject, the lawsuit nature is the refinement standard. In the determination of the charge system, delete unnecessary charges, correct a crime defect, add some new crimes, fill the loopholes in the system. In terms of legislative policy, we should pay full attention to parental authority and incorporate the system of parental concealment.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】