本文選題：教唆故意 + 單一故意��； 參考：《法學(xué)家》2017年02期

【摘要】：圍繞教唆故意的成立是否需要教唆者對構(gòu)成要件結(jié)果具有認(rèn)識,存在單一故意說與雙重故意說的爭論,其中雙重故意說更具合理性。按照雙重故意說的推論,在結(jié)果犯的場合,未遂教唆不具有可罰性,因其欠缺教唆故意。在具體危險犯及實行未終了的抽象危險犯的場合,教唆者如果對具體危險的不出現(xiàn)或抽象危險犯中實行不可能終了具有確信,則不成立教唆故意。在目的犯教唆的場合,對于與法益有關(guān)的目的,教唆者需要認(rèn)識到實行者具有該目的及本身具有該目的方成立教唆犯。對于與法益無關(guān)的目的,教唆者只需要對實行者具有特定目的有認(rèn)識就可成立教唆故意。在有故意無目的的工具場合,不應(yīng)當(dāng)把實行者具有特定目的的認(rèn)識作為教唆者教唆故意的內(nèi)容。
[Abstract]:Whether the instigator should have an understanding of the result of the constitutive elements, there is a dispute between the single intention theory and the double intention theory, in which the double intention theory is more reasonable. According to the theory of double intention, in the case of consequential offense, attempted instigation is not punishable because of its lack of abetting intention. In the case of specific dangerous crime and the practice of indefinite abstract dangerous crime, the abettor is not guilty of abetting intent if he is convinced that the incrimination of the concrete danger does not appear or that the execution of the abstract dangerous crime is impossible. In the case of the purpose of abetting, the abettor should recognize that the perpetrator has the aim and has the purpose to establish the abettor for the purpose related to the legal interest. For purposes not related to legal interest, abettor can establish abettor intention only if he has a specific purpose. In the case of intentional aimlessness, it should not be regarded as the content of abettor's intention.
【作者單位】： 云南大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：云南大學(xué)中青年英才計劃項目成果
【分類號】：D920.5;D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 陳興良;;過失犯的危險犯:以中德立法比較為視角[J];政治與法律;2014年05期

2 溫鐵林;;一口粘痰,20年徒刑[J];大科技(百科新說);2012年10期

3 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 本報記者 趙剛;酒后駕車：從結(jié)果犯到危險犯？[N];人民法院報;2009年

，

本文編號：1837189