本文選題：作為義務(wù) + 作為義務(wù)來源　； 參考：《黑龍江大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：“宋福祥”案在理論界和實務(wù)界引起了很大的爭議，對夫妻之間是否負有相互救助的義務(wù)與違背救助義務(wù)是否構(gòu)成不作為犯罪的問題，說法不一。本文通過對該案件存在的幾大爭議問題進行分析，進而引出對不作為犯罪的討論。本文總共分為四部分，第一部分是對案件發(fā)生過程及審判進行介紹；第二部分是對案件焦點進行簡單分析；第三部分是對案件中存在的爭議問題進行具體的分析，第四部分是通過對案件及案件中爭議問題的研究，得出的對不作為犯罪的完善建議。 首先，不作為犯罪的核心問題是不作為犯罪的義務(wù)來源問題。在學(xué)術(shù)界對這一問題的研究，，相比較不作為犯罪的行為性、不作為犯罪的因果關(guān)系等問題，對作為義務(wù)的來源相對薄弱。本文通過對作為義務(wù)的概念及其來源進行探討，并從中得出贊同“四來源說”的觀點，認(rèn)為作為義務(wù)的來源包括法律明文規(guī)定的義務(wù)，職務(wù)或業(yè)務(wù)要求的義務(wù)，法律行為引起的作為義務(wù)和先行行為引起的作為義務(wù)，并對此四個來源及其中的存在的爭議進行了全面系統(tǒng)的論述。 其次，對夫妻之間是否存在救助義務(wù)，若存在這種義務(wù)時，違背救助義務(wù)是否構(gòu)成不作為犯罪，以及對不作為犯罪的概念和因果關(guān)系等問題進行分析、討論。通過對我國《婚姻法》進行研究，發(fā)現(xiàn)其中僅僅規(guī)定了夫妻有相互扶養(yǎng)的義務(wù)，沒有規(guī)定夫妻之間的救助義務(wù)。那么，能否依據(jù)夫妻關(guān)系認(rèn)定宋福祥具有救助李霞的義務(wù)呢？如果不能，宋福祥是否具有救助李霞的義務(wù)呢？其義務(wù)的來源又是什么呢？本文對此進行了詳細的分析與論述。 再次，本文對法院判處宋福祥故意殺人罪認(rèn)定的其主觀心態(tài)上是否具有故意，這一爭議問題進行了論述。在案件發(fā)展過程中，宋福祥在與其妻子發(fā)生第二次爭吵后，見其妻子準(zhǔn)備繩子和凳子，自己回到房間，等到聽見凳子倒地的聲響的時候才起身，見妻子已經(jīng)吊在窗戶上后，未采取任何救助行為，而是離開家去往幾里地外的父母家。通過對案件的發(fā)展過程的分析，得出宋福祥是否具有故意殺害其妻子的主觀心態(tài)。 最后，通過對國外有關(guān)不作為立法的相關(guān)規(guī)定，指出我國在對不作為犯罪中的不純正不作為犯的規(guī)定上存在的空白，提出在立法方面的完善建議，以避免今后對判決處罰違法的不救助行為存在爭議。最后對司法實踐提出相應(yīng)的建議，以提高法律效率。
[Abstract]:The case of Song Fuxiang has caused great controversy in the theoretical and practical circles. There are different opinions on whether the husband and wife have the duty to assist each other and whether the breach of the obligation to rescue constitutes a crime of omission. This paper analyzes several controversial issues in this case, and then leads to the discussion of omission crime. This article is divided into four parts, the first part is to introduce the process of the case and the trial; the second part is a simple analysis of the focus of the case; the third part is the specific analysis of the controversial issues in the case. The fourth part is through the case and the case dispute question research, obtains to the omission crime consummation suggestion. First of all, the core problem of omission crime is the source of obligation of omission crime. In the academic research on this issue, compared with the behavior of omission crime, the causality of omission crime and so on, the source of obligation to act is relatively weak. This paper discusses the concept and source of the obligation of act, and concludes that the source of the obligation as such includes the obligation expressly stipulated by law, the duty of duty or the requirement of business, from which we agree with the view of "four sources". The obligation of action caused by legal act and the obligation of action caused by antecedent act, and the four sources and the disputes among them are discussed comprehensively and systematically. Secondly, the author analyzes whether there is a rescue obligation between husband and wife, if there is such an obligation, whether the breach of salvage obligation constitutes a crime of omission, and discusses the concept and causality of omission crime. Through the study of the Marriage Law of China, it is found that the husband and wife only have the obligation to support each other, but not the obligation of rescue between the husband and the wife. So, can the relationship between husband and wife determine that Song Fuxiang has the obligation to rescue Li Xia? If not, does Song Fuxiang have the obligation to rescue Li Xia? What is the source of its obligations? This article carries on the detailed analysis and the elaboration to this. Thirdly, this paper discusses whether the subjective state of mind of Song Fuxiang is intentional or not. In the course of the development of the case, after a second quarrel with his wife, Song Fuxiang saw his wife prepare ropes and stools, returned to his room and waited until he heard the sound of the stool falling on the ground before getting up. After seeing his wife hanging from the window, Instead of doing anything, he left home for his parents' home a few miles away. Through the analysis of the development process of the case, it is concluded that Song Fuxiang has the subjective mentality of intentionally killing his wife. Finally, through the relevant provisions of foreign legislation on omission, this paper points out the gaps in the provisions on the crime of omission in our country, and puts forward some suggestions on how to improve the legislation. In order to avoid in the future to punish illegal not to rescue the dispute. Finally, the author puts forward the corresponding suggestions to the judicial practice in order to improve the legal efficiency.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D924.34

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 李曉龍,李成;不純正不作為犯作為義務(wù)來源研究[J];北京市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;1999年02期

2 韓新遠;;論夫妻間刑法作為義務(wù)[J];研究生法學(xué);2009年04期

3 李學(xué)同;論不作為犯罪的特定義務(wù)[J];法學(xué)評論;1991年04期

4 侯斌;論不作為犯罪[J];天府新論;1996年03期

5 李衛(wèi)紅,任勇;論不作為犯罪中的作為義務(wù)[J];煙臺大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2002年02期

本文編號：2085749