發(fā)布時間：2018-05-04 02:15

  本文選題：共同正犯 + 擇一的共同正犯　； 參考：《西南財經(jīng)大學》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：共同正犯是刑法共犯理論中的一個重要范疇,共同正犯的研究對于共同犯罪的定罪和量刑具有重大意義。在德、日等大陸法系國家,共同正犯是法定的共犯種類,刑法學者們對此進行了大量的研究,并獲得了不錯的成效。結(jié)合當前事實性質(zhì)的犯罪論體系,本文通過理論梳理得出共同正犯成立的事實標準,再嘗試以事實、價值為標準對擇一的共同正犯進行分類探討,只有符合主客觀相統(tǒng)一此種事實標準的擇一共同正犯,才能認定為共同正犯,而價值的擇一共同正犯只有通過立法明文規(guī)定才能作為共同正犯處理,發(fā)揮價值補充作用。這種以事實、價值為標準對擇一共同正犯現(xiàn)象進行的分類處理,不僅能夠解決擇一共同正犯的認定問題,同時具有體系性處理問題的意義。本文除導(dǎo)論和結(jié)語外,總共分為三個部分：第一部分,共同正犯的界定。共同正犯屬于正犯的一種形態(tài),對共同正犯進行界定首先要對正犯進行界定。目前,理論界關(guān)于共同正犯成立標準的學說主要包括共同意思主體說、間接正犯類似說、主觀共犯論說和犯罪事實支配理論。本部分基于當前事實性質(zhì)的犯罪論體系,首先對共同正犯認定的價值標準展開批判,特別是對犯罪事實支配理論中的功能性支配,羅克辛認為它是共同正犯的標志,但是功能性支配是以行為對整個犯罪的貢獻大小來作為共同正犯的認定標志,這顯然是一種價值判斷。對于共同正犯的認定,應(yīng)當采用事實標準,即主觀上有共同實行的意思,客觀上有共同實行的行為,共同實行意味著各共同者應(yīng)當實行或分擔實行行為。第二部分,擇一共同正犯的類型。對于擇一的共同正犯是否應(yīng)當認定為共同正犯,理論上存在一些爭議。本部分首先對這些爭議按照肯定的觀點、否定的觀點和分情形認定的觀點進行歸納梳理,再逐一進行評析。其次,在當前事實性質(zhì)的犯罪論體系下,分別以事實、價值為標準對擇一的共同正犯進行分類探討,通過尋找組成并反映事實危險的因素,如空間、犯罪工具、視線等,透過這些因素設(shè)定一些具體的情形,經(jīng)由對這些因素的劃分來體現(xiàn)事實、價值的區(qū)別。第三部分,不同擇一共同正犯類型的劃分意義。通過上一部分的類型劃分,可以將擇一的共同正犯分為事實的擇一共同正犯和價值的擇一共同正犯。犯罪論都是具體的、時代的犯罪論,犯罪論與時代精神高度融合。而在現(xiàn)今工業(yè)化社會,形式化要求我們采用事實性質(zhì)的犯罪論體系,因此對于擇一的共同正犯,只有符合事實標準的,即在事實空間中各行為人之間能夠通過互相配合、互相補充完成實行行為的,才能認定為共同正犯；而對于不能補充實行行為,只能起到精神支撐作用的,則屬于價值的擇一共同正犯,在犯罪事實體系下,只能成立幫助犯,即共犯,不是共同正犯。若要將其作為共同正犯處理,需有立法的明文規(guī)定。進行這種劃分既是對罪刑法定原則的貫徹,同時也是對事實性質(zhì)的犯罪論體系的一個回應(yīng)。本文的創(chuàng)新之處體現(xiàn)在,結(jié)合當前事實性質(zhì)的犯罪論體系,對共同正犯認定的價值標準展開了批判,并得出共同正犯界定的事實標準。對于擇一的共同正犯是否應(yīng)當認定為共同正犯,理論界存在不同的聲音,主張分情形認定的觀點為筆者所贊同,但這種觀點單純以院落、城市(或國家)為標準對擇一的共同正犯進行劃分認定,卻沒有從理論上說清楚成立共同正犯或不成立的理由,顯得十分隨性,感性有余,理論論述不足。這是理論研究上的一個不足之處。本文創(chuàng)新性地以事實、價值的標準為視角對擇一的共同正犯進行分類探討,通過理論和舉例對這種分類進行詳細的說明和論證,找到了擇一共同正犯認定的解決之道,并指出了進行擇一共同正犯類型劃分的意義。本文的不足之處在于,在文章第一部分就共同正犯認定的價值標準展開的批判中,由于涉及德、日體系的刑法理論和相關(guān)的學說,筆者才疏學淺,對有關(guān)的理論知識可能存在理解和把握不夠的情況,因此這部分的理論論述可能略顯淺薄。同時,事實和價值是法學領(lǐng)域極具迷惑性的一對概念,犯罪論體系的不同,事實和價值的相互關(guān)系和地位也有所不同,在對事實和價值的理解上還有待進一步的學習、研究。
[Abstract]:The common principal offender is an important category in the theory of criminal accomplice, and the research of the common criminal is of great significance to the conviction and sentencing of the common crime. In the civil law countries such as Germany and Japan, the common offenders are the legal types of accomplice. The scholars of the criminal law have carried out a lot of research on this, and have achieved good results. The system of qualitative crime theory, this article through the theory of combing the fact standard of the common principal, and then try to classify the common principal offender with the fact and the value as the standard. Only the common principal offender which conforms to the subjective and objective unity of the fact standard can be identified as the common principal offender, and the total value choice is only the principal offender. It can not only solve the problem of identifying the common accomplice, but also has the significance of systematic treatment. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into three, in addition to the introduction and conclusion. Part one: the first part, the definition of the common principal offender. The common principal offender belongs to a form of the principal offender. First, the definition of the principal offender should be defined. At present, the theory of the common principal offender's establishment standard mainly includes the common meaning subject theory, the indirect principal offender similar theory, the subjective accomplice theory and the criminal fact dominating theory. On the basis of the crime theory system of current fact nature, this part first criticizes the value standard of the common principal offender, especially the functional domination of the theory of the domination of the criminal fact, Luo Kexin thinks it is the symbol of the common crime, but the function dominates the contribution of the behavior to the whole crime as the common principal offender. The identification mark is obviously a kind of value judgment. The fact standard should be adopted for the cognizance of the common offender, that is, the common practice is subjective, and the common practice should be carried out objectively. The common practice means that the common people should carry out or share the practice. Second parts, choose the type of the common accomplice. There are some controversies in whether the principal offender should be recognized as a common crime. In this part, first of all, this part makes a summary of these disputes according to the affirmative view, the negative view and the point of view, and then evaluates it one by one. Secondly, under the current factual nature of the criminal theory of the nature, it is chosen by the fact and the value as the standard. Through the search for factors that constitute and reflect the danger of the facts, such as space, crime tools, and sight, some specific situations are set through these factors, through the division of these factors to reflect the facts and the difference of value through the division of these factors. The third part, the division of the different types of common accomplice. Type division can be divided into the choice of the common offender and the principal offender of the value choice. The theory of crime is specific, the theory of the times, the theory of crime and the spirit of the times are highly integrated. The same principal offender, only in conformity with the fact standard, that in the fact space, can be identified as a common offender by mutual cooperation and complement each other by each other in the factual space, and it can only play the role of spiritual support if the act can not be complemented, and it belongs to the value optional accomplice, under the criminal fact system, only under the criminal fact system. It is not only the common principal offender to establish the accomplice, that is, it is not a common criminal. If it is to be dealt with as a common criminal, it is necessary to have the explicit provisions of the legislation. This division is a response to the principle of a legally prescribed crime, but also a response to the criminal theory of the nature of the crime. The author criticizes the value standard of the common principal offender, and draws the fact standard of the common principal offender definition. There are different voices in the theoretical circle for the common principal offender to be identified as the common principal offender, and the point of view is agreed by the author, but this view is only in the courtyard, the city (or the state) as the standard. It is an inadequacy in theoretical research that it is an inadequacy in theoretical research that it is an inadequacy in theoretical research that the common principal offenders of the common accomplice are categorized in the perspective of facts and values. Through the detailed explanation and demonstration of the classification through the theory and the examples, this paper finds the solution to the identification of the common principal offenders, and points out the significance of the classification of the selected common accomplice types. The deficiency of this article is that in the first part of the article, the criticism of the value standard of the common principal offender is concerned with the virtue, The criminal theory and related theories of the Japanese system are very shallow and may not understand and grasp the relevant theoretical knowledge. Therefore, the theoretical exposition of this part may be slightly shallow. At the same time, facts and values are a very puzzling concept in the field of law, the differences in the system of the theory of crime, the interrelation of facts and values. Department and status are also different. We still need further study and Study on the understanding of facts and values.

【學位授予單位】：西南財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D924.1

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 于改之;郭獻朝;;兩大法系犯罪論體系的比較與借鑒[J];法學論壇;2006年01期

2 陳勁陽;;試論開放的犯罪論體系[J];政法學刊;2007年03期

3 唐稷堯;;犯罪論體系:功能、價值與實現(xiàn)途徑辨析[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2007年04期

4 吳紀奎;;犯罪論體系與刑事訴訟模式[J];中國刑事法雜志;2009年03期

5 陳家林;;犯罪論體系之演變[J];刑法論叢;2009年03期

6 郭莉;;犯罪論體系方法論比較研究[J];遼寧行政學院學報;2009年10期

7 康偉;;論人權(quán)保障視野下的犯罪論體系[J];山東社會科學;2009年12期

8 高治;;祛魅與還原:反思熱議的犯罪論體系之爭[J];中國刑事法雜志;2010年03期

9 楊愛仙;;犯罪論體系比較研究[J];山東社會科學;2010年05期

10 楊志國;;德國犯罪論體系演變的現(xiàn)代西方哲學思潮背景[J];政治與法律;2010年07期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 姚兵;;德國犯罪論體系中目的犯沿革考評[A];2008全國博士生學術(shù)論壇（國際法）論文集——國際公法、國際私法分冊[C];2008年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前6條

1 北京大學法學院教授 陳興良;三階層犯罪論體系具有方法論意義[N];檢察日報;2014年

2 林燕;犯罪論體系：階層化改造或成趨勢[N];檢察日報;2009年

3 華僑大學法學院副教授 吳情樹;正反統(tǒng)一：構(gòu)建犯罪論體系的主導(dǎo)思維[N];檢察日報;2012年

4 上海市人民檢察院第二分院 楊志國;犯罪成立理論需要哲學視角[N];檢察日報;2010年

5 潘瑋;“三階層”犯罪論體系的實踐意義[N];江蘇法制報;2010年

6 華僑大學法學院 吳情樹;“我們”的法學從何處來[N];檢察日報;2009年

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前4條

1 王充;犯罪論體系本質(zhì)論綱[D];吉林大學;2005年

2 李海峰;犯罪論體系的司法應(yīng)用[D];西南財經(jīng)大學;2013年

3 陳勁陽;大陸法系犯罪論體系思想根基追問[D];吉林大學;2006年

4 丁芝華;刑法中的不法原理導(dǎo)論[D];中國政法大學;2008年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

1 馬勇;刑法教義學視角下的犯罪論體系研究[D];山東大學;2010年

2 陳鑫;中國刑法犯罪定量要素研究[D];中國青年政治學院;2014年

3 齊衛(wèi)華;犯罪論體系研究[D];蘭州大學;2015年

4 崔神寶;論盜竊罪中的數(shù)額認識錯誤[D];山東大學;2016年

5 楊曉航;論刑法實質(zhì)解釋[D];鄭州大學;2016年

6 白星星;犯罪論體系的我國抉擇[D];揚州大學;2016年

7 張靜薇;論事實的擇一共同正犯[D];西南財經(jīng)大學;2016年

8 饒t，

本文編號：1841130