本文選題：對合犯　切入點：刑罰配置　出處：《昆明理工大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：對合犯在德、日刑法理論中是必要共犯的一個下位概念,但其在我國刑法理論中的地位卻又爭議,其并不完全屬于規(guī)范層面上的共同犯罪,故而在對合犯問題上需要考慮共同犯罪規(guī)則的適應(yīng)性問題。近幾年持續(xù)的反腐熱潮得到廣泛的民意支持,但是作為非典型對合犯的行賄罪與受賄罪在實際判決中往往差異極大,差異的原因固然有很多,其中亦不乏合理之處,但是并不利于賄賂犯罪的整體治理。以此為引,根據(jù)對合犯的概念和特征,進(jìn)而探究對合犯刑罰配置差異的原因,為今后對合犯的立法及司法工作提供思路,為對合犯雙方的均衡量刑提供思路。文章正文一共分為三個部分,另附引言與結(jié)語。引言中主要介紹對合犯中存在法定刑相當(dāng)和法定刑差異的現(xiàn)狀,引出對合犯刑罰配置差異這一問題;同時梳理了對合犯的概念、分類等為下文的研究做鋪墊。第一部分,對合犯的幾個基本問題。該部分主要明確對合犯的基本概念、及特征,強調(diào)對合主體的身份、行為及意思聯(lián)絡(luò),認(rèn)為對合犯是指具有對應(yīng)地位的雙方主體在具有共同意思聯(lián)絡(luò)下相向而為的兩個相互依存的行為而構(gòu)成的犯罪;另從我國犯罪構(gòu)成和共同犯罪的含義論證我國對合犯和共同犯罪的關(guān)系,認(rèn)為我國對合犯是事實層面上的共同犯罪。第二部分,對合犯的分類及存在的問題。該部分將我國《刑法》中的對合犯根據(jù)刑罰不同分為同罪同罰、異罪異罰、只罰一方三類,根據(jù)行為內(nèi)容不同分為買賣型對合犯、賄賂型對合犯、其他對合犯三類,并簡要分析不同類型的對合犯,指出我國對合犯存在立法模式混亂、用詞不統(tǒng)一的問題。第三部分,對合犯的立法規(guī)定和司法認(rèn)定。建議在今后彼此俱罰的對合犯的立法中避免采用異罪異罰的方式立法,若仍采用異罪異罰的方式則在對合雙方的犯罪成立條件和量刑幅度盡量相當(dāng);在我國現(xiàn)有刑法框架下對合犯的量刑盡量相當(dāng),在異罪異罰的對合犯的量刑時應(yīng)當(dāng)先確定對合雙方的行為是兩方共同的刑事責(zé)任范圍,然后根據(jù)雙方在對合犯罪中的地位和作用確定各自刑事責(zé)任程度。
[Abstract]:Adversarial offense is a lower concept of necessary accomplice in the criminal law theory of Germany and Japan, but its position in the criminal law theory of our country is controversial, and it does not belong to the joint crime on the normative level. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the adaptability of joint crime rules in the problem of adversarial offense. In recent years, the continuous anti-corruption boom has been widely supported by public opinion, but the crime of bribery and the crime of accepting bribes, as atypical adversaries, often differ greatly in actual judgments. Of course, there are many reasons for the differences, among which there are many reasonable ones, but they are not conducive to the overall management of the crime of bribery. As a guide, according to the concept and characteristics of the commutative offense, the reasons for the difference in penalty allocation of the commutative offense are explored. To provide ideas for the legislative and judicial work in the future, and for the balanced sentencing of both parties. The text of the article is divided into three parts. Introduction and conclusion. The introduction mainly introduces the current situation of the legal penalty equivalence and legal penalty difference in the commutative offense, leads to the problem of the difference in penalty allocation of the adversarial offense, and combs the concept of the adversarial offense. The first part, several basic problems of involutive offense. This part mainly defines the basic concept and characteristics of involutive crime, emphasizes the identity, behavior and meaning connection of the involutive subject, It is believed that the dual offense is a crime constituted by two interdependent acts of the subject of both parties with corresponding status under the connection of common meaning. In addition, from the meaning of the constitution of crime and the joint crime in our country, the author proves the relationship between the adversarial crime and the joint crime in our country, and thinks that the adversarial crime in our country is a joint crime on the level of fact. The second part, In this part, according to different penalties, the adversaries in the Criminal Law are divided into the same punishment for the same crime, different punishment for different crimes, only three types of punishment for one party, and according to the different content of the behavior, it can be divided into two types: the transactional offender, the bribe type commutator. There are three types of other invocations, and a brief analysis of different types of adversaries, pointing out that there is confusion in the legislative model and inconsistent words in China's commutative offense. Part three, Legislative provisions and judicial cognizance of dual offenders... It is recommended that in the future legislation on commutative offenders punished by each other, legislation should be avoided in the form of different penalties for different crimes, If we still adopt the method of different punishment for different crimes, we will try our best to match the conditions of establishing the crime and the range of sentencing of the two parties; under the existing criminal law framework of our country, the sentencing of the adversaries will be as similar as possible. In the sentencing of the common-offender with different punishment for different crimes, the behavior of the two parties should be determined as the common scope of criminal responsibility, and then the degree of criminal responsibility should be determined according to the position and function of the two parties in the dual crime.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：昆明理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.392

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 沈琪;;對合犯若干問題淺議[J];人民司法;2007年15期

2 肖揚宇;;“對合犯”之本土化新探[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年02期

3 楊新培;試論對合犯[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1992年01期

4 謝彤;對合犯若干問題探討[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年04期

5 袁彬;論對合犯的共犯問題[J];山東警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

6 張磊;;對合犯理解的新角度[J];遼寧教育行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年03期

7 馮江菊;;論刑法中的對合犯罪[J];韶關(guān)學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué));2006年04期

8 夏云;;對合犯犯罪形態(tài)問題淺論[J];法制與社會;2014年07期

9 金亮君;;對合犯中主從犯認(rèn)定在審理農(nóng)村涉爆案件中的運用[J];才智;2014年14期

10 孫國祥;;對合犯與共同犯罪的關(guān)系[J];人民檢察;2012年15期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前5條

1 袁彬;對合犯中“共犯”行為如何處罰[N];檢察日報;2004年

2 江蘇省高級人民法院、江蘇省宿遷市中級人民法院 趙祥東邋吳燕;被告人揭發(fā)他人以自己為對象實施犯罪是否構(gòu)成立功[N];人民法院報;2008年

3 西南政法大學(xué)法學(xué)院 譚建榮;送養(yǎng)與拐賣居間行為要區(qū)別定性[N];檢察日報;2014年

4 馮雷　張宜紅;存款人索要高利率是否構(gòu)成犯罪[N];江蘇法制報;2011年

5 本報記者 劉金林;高考作弊,刑法該如何應(yīng)對[N];檢察日報;2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張華強;對合犯問題研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2009年

2 張磊;對合犯論要[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

3 王凱強;代替考試罪犯罪形態(tài)研究[D];沈陽師范大學(xué);2016年

4 宋王英子;片面對合犯問題研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2016年

5 陳怡盈;我國對合犯刑罰配置研究[D];昆明理工大學(xué);2017年

6 馬志永;論對合犯與我國共犯理論的關(guān)系[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

7 馬國旭;對合犯問題研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2011年

8 段安娜;論片面對合犯[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

9 丁琪;對合犯問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

10 羅杰;對合犯研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號：1681101