预备行为实行化探究

发布时间：2018-04-13 14:44

本文选题：预备行为实行化 + 正当性依据　；参考：《武汉大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：按照《中华人民共和国刑法》(以下简称《刑法》)第22条的规定,预备行为是指为了犯罪,准备工具、制造条件的行为,实质上是便于犯罪实施的行为。预备行为实行化是指立法者将原本属于预备性质的行为在刑法分则中单独规定,使之具有实行行为性的立法现象。这就意味着,原本的预备行为具备了为实行行为的地位。本文正文分为以下三个部分:第一部分是预备行为实行化的概述。本文先对预备行为的概念、预备行为和实行行为的关系进行探究,提出预备行为实行化的概念。随后对我国预备行为的立法进行考察,封建刑法、1979年《刑法》、1997年《刑法》都对犯罪预备性质的行为进行处罚,表明了预备行为具有跨越时空的可罚性。《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(九)》(以下简称《刑法修正案(九)》)中增设了准备实施恐怖活动罪和非法利用信息网络罪,加大了对预备行为的打击力度,对重要法益进行前置保护,体现了预备行为实行化的立法新动态。而这一立法现象的背景在于,风险社会引发的不安全感,积极一般预防的刑法理论,现有立法虚置与疏漏并存的困境,以及司法裁量标准模糊所引发的实务难题。第二部分是预备行为实行化的类型与正当性依据。类型化研究是法学领域的重要研究方法,本文通过对预备罪名的梳理,以发生领域为标准对实行化后的预备行为进行归纳,可以分为国家安全、公共安全、金融管理、税收征管、公民权利、公共秩序、国防利益等领域的预备罪。对以上预备罪的类型分析得出,其正当性依据在于危险递增理论、重大法益的提前保护和"打早打小"的刑事政策。第三部分是预备行为实行化的挑战与应对。预备行为实行化在有效惩治犯罪和保障人权的同时,主要面临着以下挑战:其一,刑法提前介入带来的刑罚权扩张风险;其二,预备行为具有非定型性的弊病;其三,预备罪特殊犯罪形态和共同犯罪的认定之争,即预备罪是否未完成形态,以及预备罪是否具有教唆犯和帮助犯。针对不同的挑战,笔者依次进行分析论证,提出了自己的观点,第一,预备行为实行化带来的刑法权扩张的风险,能够通过严格限缩预备罪的范围进行有效抑制;第二,明确适用预备罪的标准,构成想象竞合时,从一重罪进行处罚;第三,预备行为实行化具有法益保护前置的特殊性,结合不同预备罪的行为方式,要对预备罪的预备、未遂和中止进行具体认定。预备行为实行化之后,在刑法分则中构成实质预备罪,具有实行行为,因而肯定预备罪的共同正犯。根据共犯从属说,同时肯定预备罪存在教唆犯和帮助犯。
[Abstract]:According to Article 22 of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "Criminal Law"), preparatory act refers to the act of making conditions for the purpose of committing a crime.The practice of preparatory act refers to the legislative phenomenon that the legislator separately prescribes the behavior that belongs to the preparatory nature in the special provisions of the criminal law.This means that the original preparatory act has the status of performing the act.The text of this paper is divided into the following three parts: the first part is an overview of the implementation of preparatory acts.This paper first explores the concept of preparatory act and the relationship between preparatory act and practice act, and puts forward the concept of implementation of preparatory act.Subsequently, the legislation on preparatory acts in China was investigated. The feudal Criminal Law, the Criminal Law in 1979 and the Criminal Law in 1997 all penalized acts of a preparatory nature.It shows that the preparatory act is punishable across time and space. The crime of preparing for terrorist activities and illegally using information network has been added to the Criminal Law Amendment (IX) of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Law Amendment (IX)).It increases the strike on the preparatory act and protects the important legal interests, which reflects the new legislative trend of the implementation of the preparatory act.The background of this legislative phenomenon lies in the insecurity caused by the risk society, the criminal law theory of positive general prevention, the dilemma of the existing legislation with false and omission, and the practical problems caused by the ambiguity of the judicial discretion standard.The second part is the type and justification basis of the practice of preparatory act.Typological study is an important research method in the field of law. By combing the preparatory charges and taking the field of occurrence as the standard, this paper summarizes the preparatory acts after implementation, which can be divided into national security, public security, financial management, and so on.Tax collection, civil rights, public order, defense interests and other areas of the preparatory crime.According to the analysis of the types of the above crimes, the legitimacy is based on the theory of increasing risk, the early protection of major legal benefits and the criminal policy of "striking early and small".The third part is the challenge and response to the implementation of preparatory act.At the same time of effectively punishing crime and safeguarding human rights, preparatory acts are faced with the following challenges: first, the risk of the expansion of criminal rights brought about by the early intervention of criminal law; secondly, the non-stereotyped disadvantages of preparatory acts; third,There is a dispute about the special form of crime of preparation and the determination of joint crime, that is, whether the crime of preparation has not been completed, and whether the crime of preparation has abettor and aider.In view of different challenges, the author analyzes and demonstrates in turn, and puts forward his own viewpoint. First, the risk of the expansion of criminal law power brought about by the implementation of preparatory act can be effectively restrained by strictly limiting the scope of the crime of preparation; second,It is clear that the standard of applying the crime of preparation should be punished from a felony when it constitutes imagination concurrence; third, the implementation of the preparatory act has the particularity of the protection of legal interests, and combining with the behavior mode of the different preparatory crime, the preparation of the crime of preparation should be carried out.Attempt and suspension for specific determination.After the implementation of the preparatory act, it constitutes the substantive preparatory crime in the special provisions of the criminal law, and has the practice act, thus affirming the joint principal offender of the preparatory crime.According to the theory of accomplice subordination, it is certain that there are abettors and aiders in the crime of preparation.
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】