本文選題：先行行為　切入點(diǎn)：作為義務(wù)理論　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：不作為犯罪以負(fù)有作為義務(wù)為核心要素,分為純正的不作為犯罪和不純正的不作為犯罪,其中不純正的不作為犯罪相較于純正的不作為犯罪,在學(xué)術(shù)界中引發(fā)的爭(zhēng)議更大,特別是作為不純正不作為犯罪的義務(wù)來(lái)源之一的先行行為,從其誕生開(kāi)始,學(xué)界就不斷的進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)論與檢討。正是因?yàn)橄刃行袨榈姆ɡ砘A(chǔ)、界限外延具有極大的爭(zhēng)議性,所以在司法實(shí)踐中的應(yīng)用也具有極大的困惑。作為司法工作者,在司法實(shí)踐中看到過(guò)由于對(duì)先行行為的理解不同,對(duì)是否構(gòu)成不作為犯罪得出不同的結(jié)論,又或者對(duì)同一案件事實(shí)雖然構(gòu)成不作為犯罪的結(jié)論相同,但論證路徑大相徑庭,正是司法實(shí)踐中的應(yīng)用混亂引發(fā)了筆者對(duì)先行行為進(jìn)行學(xué)習(xí)研究的興趣。本文先從三個(gè)案例入手,說(shuō)明司法實(shí)踐中因?qū)ο刃行袨榈牟煌斫鈱?dǎo)致適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不統(tǒng)一的現(xiàn)象,并從案例中總結(jié)出在形式作為義務(wù)理論和實(shí)質(zhì)作為義務(wù)理論下,先行行為具有不同的地位和作用,繼而通過(guò)歸納總結(jié)已有之研究成果,說(shuō)明形式作為義務(wù)理論向?qū)嵸|(zhì)作為義務(wù)理論過(guò)渡之必要以及從作為與不作為需具有等價(jià)性為立足點(diǎn),總結(jié)出先行行為實(shí)質(zhì)法理基礎(chǔ)是對(duì)法益侵害的因果流程具有支配作用,進(jìn)而肯定先行行為的保證人地位。在肯定了先行行為保證人地位之后,試圖進(jìn)一步界定先行行為的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),通過(guò)對(duì)現(xiàn)有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的總結(jié)分析,根據(jù)先行行為的特殊性,認(rèn)為依客觀歸責(zé)理論對(duì)先行行為進(jìn)行界定具有一定的科學(xué)性,并得出在先行為必須創(chuàng)設(shè)或升高了風(fēng)險(xiǎn),在先行為與損害結(jié)果之間具有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)關(guān)聯(lián)且風(fēng)險(xiǎn)實(shí)現(xiàn)不是由受害人自我危險(xiǎn)行為等其他客觀因素所導(dǎo)致的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最后嘗試將得出的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)用于司法實(shí)踐。
[Abstract]:Not as a crime to bear the obligation as the core elements, divided into pure nonfeasance crime and impure crime of omission, which is not a pure crime compared to a pure crime, caused in the academic circle of the more controversial, especially as impure as one of the first acts of a source of obligations crime, from the beginning of its birth, scholars continue to debate and review. It is because the legal basis of the advance behavior, boundary extension is controversial, so the application in the judicial practice also has great confusion. As a judicial worker, in judicial practice, due to the different behavior seen in advance the understanding of whether not as a crime constitutes different conclusions, or on the same case although not constitute a crime as the same conclusion, but it is the path to be quite different in judicial practice. The application of chaos caused the author to study interest in the first behavior. This paper first starts with three cases, instructions in judicial practice because of the different understanding of the antecedent actions lead to the application of the standard is not unified phenomenon, and from the case summed up in the form of obligation theory and substantive obligation theory, the advance behavior has status and the effects of different, then summarize the existing research results, explain the form theory of the obligation to nature as a necessary transition, from the theory of the obligation of inaction and need is equivalent as the starting point, this paper first action jurisprudence is a dominant role on law against the causal process, and that the status of people certainly the advance behavior. After that the advance behavior status of guarantor, to further define the criteria of antecedent actions, based on the existing standard The summary and analysis, according to the special nature of the first act, that according to the definition of the objective imputation theory has certain science on the behavior of the first, and the first act creating or increased the risk and the risk associated with risk must not self risk behavior is caused by the victim and other objective factors defined between prior behavior and damage results. Finally the that the definition of standards for judicial practice.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 楊小蘭;不作為犯中的先行行為研究[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2014年

2 馬續(xù)恒;論不作為犯之先行行為[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2014年

3 趙鵬;不作為犯罪中的先行行為問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1726683