本文選題：先行行為 + 義務(wù)來源�。� 參考：《廈門大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：先行行為歷來被視為不作為犯義務(wù)的來源之一,但先行行為保證人類型在刑法中仍存在諸多爭議。例如應(yīng)否肯定先行行為保證人類型及其實(shí)質(zhì)法理基礎(chǔ),先行行為的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),先行行為的范圍及先行行為保證人的歸責(zé)等,在學(xué)界仍存爭議。本文將以解決這些問題為目標(biāo)展開�！� 文章第一章旨在對先行行為歷史發(fā)展及其理論前提予以介紹。本章第一部分介紹先行行為的歷史淵源,第二部分分析先行行為在不作為犯罪體系中的地位。作為形式作為義務(wù)來源之一的先行行為,隨著理論及實(shí)踐對形式作為義務(wù)的質(zhì)疑,其保證人地位也受到動(dòng)搖。 第二章旨在探尋先行行為的實(shí)質(zhì)法理基礎(chǔ)。本章整理分析德日有關(guān)保證人地位實(shí)質(zhì)化運(yùn)動(dòng)中的各學(xué)說后,支持重視事實(shí)性要素的見解的“因果流程支配理論”。但由于對“支配”概念的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一樣,導(dǎo)致同持該觀點(diǎn)的學(xué)者在探究先行行為保證類型上,結(jié)論往往大相徑庭。本章試圖對各種“支配”概念進(jìn)行解析,以最終肯定先行行保證人類型。 第三章界定先行行為的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并確定其成立范圍。對于先行行為的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)本文引用Roxin教授從客觀理論中推導(dǎo)出的先行行為的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：先行行為必須是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)創(chuàng)設(shè)行為,必須與損害結(jié)果之間存在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)關(guān)聯(lián),必須不存在被害人或第三人的自我答責(zé)行為。根據(jù)前述界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),先行行為包括犯罪行為(故意和過失),但不包括合法行為。 第四章確定先行行為保證人的歸責(zé)模式。首先介紹及分析刑法理論中的三種主要?dú)w責(zé)模式。承認(rèn)先行行為保證人類型,原則上對先行行為引起的犯罪應(yīng)采用不純正不作為犯的歸責(zé)模式。最后,援引臺(tái)灣許玉秀教授對先行行為保證人的分類,將先行行為保證人類型分為四大類,分別論述其歸責(zé)模式的選擇
[Abstract]:Antecedent act has always been regarded as one of the sources of the obligation of omission, but the type of surety of antecedent act is still controversial in criminal law. For example, whether we should confirm the type of surety and its substantial legal basis, the standard of judgment, the scope of antecedent act and the liability of surety of antecedent act are still controversial in academic circles. This article aims to solve these problems. The first chapter aims to introduce the historical development of antecedent behavior and its theoretical premise. The first part of this chapter introduces the historical origin of antecedents, the second part analyzes the status of antecedents in the crime system of omission. As a form as one of the sources of obligation, with the theory and practice of the form as the obligation of doubt, the status of guarantor has also been shaken. The second chapter aims to explore the substantive legal basis of antecedents. In this chapter, the author analyzes the theories of the substantial movement of the guarantor's status in Germany and Japan, and supports the theory of "causal process domination", which attaches importance to the factual elements. However, due to the different criteria of defining the concept of "domination", the conclusion is often quite different from that of scholars who hold this view in exploring the types of guarantee of antecedent behavior. This chapter attempts to analyze various concepts of "domination" in order to confirm the type of surety. The third chapter defines the criterion of the antecedent behavior and the scope of its establishment. In this paper, the definition standard of antecedent behavior derived from objective theory by Professor Roxin is cited: the antecedent act must be a risk-creating act, and there must be a risk correlation between the antecedent behavior and the result of damage. There must be no self-accountability of the victim or the third party. According to the above defined criteria, antecedents include criminal acts (intent and negligence), but not lawful acts. The fourth chapter determines the liability model of the guarantor of the first act. Firstly, three kinds of imputation modes in criminal law theory are introduced and analyzed. To recognize the type of surety of antecedent act, we should adopt the imputable mode of imputation for the crime caused by antecedent act in principle. Finally, according to Professor Xu Yu-xiu 's classification of surety for antecedent act in Taiwan, the author divides the type of surety into four categories, and discusses the choice of imputation mode respectively.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廈門大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王瑩;;先行行為作為義務(wù)之理論譜系歸整及其界定[J];中外法學(xué);2013年02期

2 王瑩;;論犯罪行為人的先行行為保證人地位[J];法學(xué)家;2013年02期

3 孫立紅;;論共同犯罪中的不作為參與[J];法學(xué)家;2013年01期

4 陳興良;;不作為犯論的生成[J];中外法學(xué);2012年04期

5 白建軍;;論不作為犯的法定性與相似性[J];中國法學(xué);2012年02期

6 張明楷;;不作為犯中的先前行為[J];法學(xué)研究;2011年06期

7 呂英杰;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)中的產(chǎn)品刑事責(zé)任[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年06期

8 黎宏;;“見死不救”行為定性分析——兼論不真正不作為犯的作為義務(wù)的判斷[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

9 姚詩;;先前行為歸責(zé)模式述評[J];刑事法評論;2011年01期

10 姚詩;;交通肇事“逃逸”的規(guī)范目的與內(nèi)涵[J];中國法學(xué);2010年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1776032