本文選題：不作為　切入點(diǎn)：共犯　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2004年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：縱觀各國(guó)刑法發(fā)展史，關(guān)于不作為共犯的研究，較早出現(xiàn)于德國(guó)。早 在19世紀(jì)末，德國(guó)的判例就肯定了不作為形式的幫助犯。二戰(zhàn)以后， 德 國(guó)的理論界更是雨后春筍般出現(xiàn)了諸多關(guān)于不作為共犯的理論和學(xué)說(shuō)。而 f=1本學(xué)界以實(shí)際判例的出現(xiàn)為契機(jī)，分析和探討了關(guān)于不作為共犯的理論 構(gòu)成，使該問(wèn)題已然成為目前日本學(xué)界的熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。 在我國(guó)理論界關(guān)于不作為共犯的研究不僅相當(dāng)薄弱，甚至可以說(shuō)是尚 未涉足。這不僅是因?yàn)閷?shí)際的審判實(shí)踐沒(méi)有足夠的重視，理論界也沒(méi)有對(duì) 此問(wèn)題給予足夠的關(guān)注。理論的觸角尚未觸及此領(lǐng)域，還因?yàn)槲覀兝碚摻?一直以來(lái)只是對(duì)犯罪論的不同具體領(lǐng)域給予關(guān)注和加以研究的同時(shí)，卻忽 略了犯罪論不同領(lǐng)域之間的競(jìng)合所帶來(lái)的一系列理論上和實(shí)踐上的問(wèn)題。 可以說(shuō)，不作為共犯就是不作為這一行為論與共犯論相交叉所產(chǎn)生的問(wèn) 題。 首先，應(yīng)該肯定不作為共犯理論是極為復(fù)雜的。在這里，即使筆者把 論文題目概括為“不作為共犯”，但由于其涉及范圍廣和內(nèi)容復(fù)雜多樣， 因此，為研究的需要有必要進(jìn)一步明確，并限制其理論形態(tài)。本文所探討 的“不作為共犯”僅僅對(duì)“不作為形式的共犯”進(jìn)行探討，而不涉及“不 作為犯的共犯”問(wèn)題。最后，以“不作為形式的共犯”為內(nèi)容的不作為共 犯的體系性歸屬問(wèn)題，即屬于共犯理論范疇還是屬于不作為犯理論范疇的 問(wèn)題。本文把不作為共犯問(wèn)題納入共犯論領(lǐng)域的同時(shí)，由于“不作為”行 為方式的特性所決定，既然不能直接導(dǎo)入以“作為”為前提的共犯理論， 來(lái)探討“不作為共犯”問(wèn)題，所以，本文試圖通過(guò)研究來(lái)揭示以“不作為” 為基本形式的共犯理論的特點(diǎn)。 不作為正犯與共犯的界限基準(zhǔn)可以說(shuō)足最難統(tǒng)一的問(wèn)題，也是研究不 WP=185 作為共犯問(wèn)題的基礎(chǔ)。德日關(guān)于區(qū)分不作為正犯與共犯有諸多理論。第一， 以共犯論為基礎(chǔ)，其區(qū)別與作為相同，又分為下列三種學(xué)說(shuō)：主觀說(shuō)，其 中又有故意說(shuō)與目的說(shuō)或利益說(shuō)之別。故意說(shuō)認(rèn)為，具有為自己行為之意 思而為行為者為正犯，以加擔(dān)于他人行為之意思而為行為者則為共犯。目 的說(shuō)或利益說(shuō)認(rèn)為，以自己之目的或利益而為行為者為正犯，以他人之目 的或利益而為行為者則為共犯：行為支配說(shuō)，認(rèn)為不作為犯，亦適用行為 支配之觀念，其稱行為支配，是指基于故意把握相當(dāng)于構(gòu)成要件之事象的 經(jīng)過(guò)，行為人所認(rèn)識(shí)目的的構(gòu)成要件形成之操縱可能性，事實(shí)上處于得依 自己之意思，阻止或中斷構(gòu)成要件實(shí)現(xiàn)之狀態(tài)，并認(rèn)識(shí)之者。有此行為支 配者為正犯，無(wú)此行為支配者則為共犯；保障人說(shuō)，認(rèn)為保障人系在作為 者尚在支配行為經(jīng)過(guò)時(shí)，不阻止作為者之行為者為共犯，如在作為者尚未 支配行為經(jīng)過(guò)時(shí)不避免結(jié)果發(fā)生的則為正犯。 上述三種學(xué)說(shuō)中，主觀說(shuō)完全以行為人的主觀意思為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，根本不可 能將正犯與共犯區(qū)別清楚。因?yàn)榉缸锸切袨槿诵袨榈目陀^要件與主觀要件 的統(tǒng)一，只根據(jù)一方面的要件，不僅不能將二者區(qū)別開來(lái)，有時(shí)甚至?xí)?出錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)論。故為絕大多數(shù)學(xué)者所不采。行為支配說(shuō)以目的行為論作為 區(qū)分的理論基礎(chǔ)，這種行為學(xué)說(shuō)本身就不科學(xué)，故未被多數(shù)學(xué)者接受。第 三種學(xué)說(shuō)以保證人說(shuō)所開展的“同價(jià)值性”之觀念為基礎(chǔ)，以有行為支配 之作為者的存在為前提，專就其與作為者的關(guān)系，評(píng)價(jià)不作為者的不作為， 不失為一種研究方法。但該說(shuō)過(guò)于抽象，缺乏可操作性，，且在對(duì)純正不作 為犯實(shí)行幫助的場(chǎng)合，該說(shuō)則無(wú)法適用。 第二，以不作為論為基礎(chǔ)，認(rèn)為原則上純正不作為犯與不純正不作為 犯均無(wú)不作為共犯的情況存在。凡有作為義務(wù)者的不作為均為正犯。不可 否認(rèn)，不作為的幫助多發(fā)生在對(duì)作為犯進(jìn)行幫助的場(chǎng)合，但在實(shí)踐中，確 有對(duì)不作為的正犯而以不作為進(jìn)行幫助的情況。 筆者認(rèn)為，認(rèn)定其不作為是正犯還是共犯，在行為人具有作為義務(wù)的 前提下，應(yīng)堅(jiān)持主觀要件和客觀要件相統(tǒng)一的原則：以實(shí)行犯的意思，直 接以不作為實(shí)行犯罪構(gòu)成客觀要件行為的是正犯：以幫助他人犯罪的意 思，以不作為實(shí)施犯罪構(gòu)成客觀要件以外的行為的是共犯。 WP=186 區(qū)別基準(zhǔn)明確之后，利用主客觀相統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，就可以對(duì)不作為共犯 的具體形態(tài)進(jìn)行分析論證，判斷其是不作為的正犯還是共犯。這也是總論 篇的主要內(nèi)容。 在理論界關(guān)于不作為的共同正犯問(wèn)題并沒(méi)有達(dá)成共識(shí)，形成統(tǒng)一的學(xué) 說(shuō)，至今仍存在著否定說(shuō)與肯定說(shuō)之爭(zhēng)。(一)全面否定說(shuō)，主要從不作 為的基本構(gòu)造出發(fā)，否定不作為形式的共犯形態(tài)的成立。因此，主張也不 可能存在不作為的共同正犯。 (二)全面肯定說(shuō)， 持全面肯定說(shuō)的，一般 把不作為的共同正犯分為作為與不作為的共同正犯和不作為與不作為的 共同正犯進(jìn)行論述。 (三)限定肯定說(shuō) ，該說(shuō)實(shí)際上是在批判全面肯定說(shuō) 的基礎(chǔ)上，從共同正犯的本質(zhì)出發(fā)，重新解釋不作為共同正犯形態(tài)，并認(rèn) 為應(yīng)該限定不作為共同正犯的存在范圍。懷疑不作為共同正犯理論可能性 的觀點(diǎn)，從有目的行為論出發(fā)把不作為因果關(guān)系欠缺目的性作為理由，否 定出于實(shí)現(xiàn)意圖的不作為犯的故意性。認(rèn)為共同行為的決定和分工都是不 可能的。 筆者認(rèn)為，機(jī)械地看待
[Abstract]:In the history of criminal law, the research about the accomplice of omission, first appeared in the early German.
At the end of nineteenth Century, the German case certainly not as a form of help prisoners. After World War II, Germany
The theory is more like bamboo shoots after a spring rain appeared many about not as an accomplice theory and doctrine.
F=1 the actual case to the academia as an opportunity, analysis and discussion about the omission of the theory of accomplice
A, the problem has become a hot issue of the current Japanese scholars.
In the theory circle of our country on the not as an accomplice study not only very weak, and even can be said to be still
Not involved. This is not only because of the actual judicial practice not enough attention, nor on the theory
This problem gives enough attention. The theory has not yet reached the antenna field, but also because of our theoretical circles
Since only on different specific areas of the crime theory give attention and study at the same time, he suddenly
The theory of crime issues a series of theory of concurrence between different areas brought and practice.
It can be said, not as an accomplice is not as the behavior theory and the theory of accomplice generated by cross.
Questions.
First of all, should certainly not as an accomplice theory is extremely complex. Here, even the
The topic summarized as "not as an accomplice, but because it involves a wide range and complicated,
Therefore, the need for research on the need to further clarify, and limit the theory discussed in this paper form.
"Not as" accomplice "only as a form of joint crime are discussed, and do not involve"
As the accomplice problem. Finally, "not as a form of accomplice" as the content is not as common
The problem of ownership system crime, which belong to the theory of accomplice is belong to omission theory category
In this paper the problem. Not as an accomplice accomplice theory into the field at the same time, because "not as"
Is determined by the characteristics of the ways, since not directly into the "as the premise of the theory of accomplice,
To explore the "complicity" problem, therefore, this paper attempts to study to reveal "not as"
For the characteristics of the basic form of accomplice theory.
Not as principaloffender boundaries can be said is the most difficult benchmark problems, and research
WP=185
As the basis of complicity. Germany and Japan on the distinction between perpetrator and accomplice not as there are many theories first,
As an accomplice theory, the difference and the same as, and is divided into the following three theories: the subjective theory, the
There are also deliberately said to say or not. The interests that deliberately said that is for their own behavior.
Think as the principal for the actors to bear the meaning for others and actors are as an accomplice.
The said interest said that its own purpose or interest for the actors as the principal, to others.
Of or interest for the actors to control said that: the accomplice of omission, also applies to the behavior of
The concept of the dominant behavior, called domination, is an intentional grasp equivalent to the components of the image based on the
After, people realize the purpose of behavior elements form the manipulation of possibility, in fact in accordance with
You mean, stop or interrupt a state of realization and understanding of the elements, has supported this behavior.
With people as the principal, the dominant behavior for security accomplice; say that as people in the Department of security
Who is in the dominant behavior after, don't stop as the actors as an accomplice, as in as yet
鏀厤琛屼負(fù)緇忚繃鏃朵笉閬垮厤緇撴灉鍙戠敓鐨勫垯涓烘鐘

本文編號(hào)：1620474